Trades for Tuesday

I think I just saw one!!

(a trade, that is)!!


Meats and Cheeses all around!!

 

I'll go out on a limb here and say....The market will continue to flucuate, but not right away.

 

It gives you "a high probability of tradeable movement"...but doesn't give you a signal which way. So what do you do, flip a coin for long or short?

My system tells me that if an economic number is coming out at 10:00 am...the probability of a volume influx with tradeable movement is high....does that mean we're using the same system?

 

WALTER,
SO FAR I AM DOING PRETTY WELL FOLLOWING YOUR METHODS.. PLEASE KEEP UP THE ARTICULATE POSTS ON YOUR TRADING!

THANKS IN ADVANCE!

 

Walter's "method" may call it differently, but it's hardly the same signal. Calling a trade time in advance, then looking in hindsight for something that occurred somewhere around that time is hardly a "method". So far he's failed to call the "most tradeable moments", unless "tradeable" is defined as any movement whatsoever.

As to explaining his TA, we (including moderators) have been asking him for a week to explain what he's talking about, but so far it's no better than "vinnie-style" puffery. Unless he responds to the requests, who cares?

--Db

 

Try if you see some tradeable setup around 13:50 or 14:15 est.

 

Ditto.

(my feeble mind was unable to come up with anything intelligent to say).

 

When I said 'Walter's method'... I should have said 'Walter's analysis, or Walter's signal' (hey! we may have something new here! )

When I said 'method', it may be misunderstood as 'system'. A trading system comprises of many TA signals, e.g. a divergence RSI may indicate a possible versersal of the trend, but will not tell you when to get in, and one could use a crossing of MA as signal to get in.

It may help if Walter could explain briefly how he gets those time values, unless it's proprietary.

Cheers !!

 

If it's proprietary, why bother? If one wants to educate or enlighten, the least he can do is be clear, or at least invite questions in case he thinks he's being clear but isn't. If instead one throws up the "proprietary" cloud, or ignores the questions, then the audience is justified in wondering what the motives are.

It isn't clarity that invites flames, it's obfuscation. Fortunately, there are a few people around, like acrary, that one can actually learn something from without having to pull teeth to do it.

--Db