Given the number of people who misinterpreted your post, the cycle will indeed go on. Incidentally, we didn't have to retrace the entire gap for you to be "right". A trend day has no minimum number of points. And traders worry about giving away their "secrets" . . . --Db
Amazing. I have read Brandon talk about his statistical study of the percentage threshold for gaps that are likely to fill and those that are not to fill...In fact, he tends to return to this site from time to time just to remind the peanut gallery of this fact ever so often...Clearly, the IMPLICATION from a post that was made at 1 AM, following a clear breakout of a tight, compressed range, which he even referrenced Toby Crabel as his source for this study, was that the market was breaking out higher. Now, Brandon admitted that his first three trades were long trades, which were losses, nothing wrong with that at all...But I refuse to listen to a second hand opinion of someone else's post and alot of this cronyism that goes on around here...Whether he is sponsoring this site or whatever, most of us can determine what was implied... and Hendrix you can stop puckering those lips and stand up again...
Apparently not I have an idea. How 'bout everybody taking responsibility for their own trades? No? OK. --Db
I do not trade the US markets as I live in the Asian time zone, but I do, each and every day, track them using my (proprietary - and no I'm not looking to sell or disclose it, or its performance in any way, shape or form) breakout strategy which I use to trade the Asian markets. When tracking (call it paper trading if you will, but it is on a "post the fact" basis - ie Asian morning) the US markets, I take the worst price in the following 60 seconds as a fill. This would have had me short NQ at 1086, close MOC, and long ES at 904, stop 898.9, reverse to short 897 close MOC (I actually use the big contracts to track these trades for a number of reasons, but that is beside the point). Hence, what Brandon said was absolutely right. It was a trend day, and it could have been traded as such. I don't know Brandon from a bar of soap. I have never been to his room, and I have no association. However, when someone posts sensible thoughts or advice (as, I have noticed, Brandon's generally is) on these boards----advice which newbies, in particular, should take heed of, it tends to irk me. Just because Brandon is (in the "knockers" view) touting his paid service does not mean that he should be ignored or knocked by people who seem to have an inability to read black and white. Newbies would, IMHO, do well to filter Brandon in, and put most other people on the ignore list. I reiterate. I have no association with Brandon. I simply recognise a guy who knows what he is talking about and generally gives good and sensible advice. Puckeringly or not, H
You know, there's nothing wrong with someone posting their "high probability" expectation for tomorrow and then being wrong. High probability means it's likely but not guaranteed and sh*t happens. I didn't see the post on ET originally, but I did get an email that Brandon sent late Sunday night that contained the contents of what he posted on this thread. The obvious implication of that message was for a "trend day" upward following the gap open - hence the mention that such days rarely fill their gaps and the lack of mention of the very significant overhead resistance not far above and the morning attempts at going long. Nothing wrong with that. It's OK to be wrong on a call, nobody said this was a 100% game. It was Brandon's "here's my take on the probability" for tomorrow kind of call and that's fine. It turned out wrong and that's OK, it happens - if you're playing the probabilities, sometimes you're going to lose. But accept it and move on, don't try to rationalize or excuse the call. Had the response been something like "oops, the original call turned out wrong, but when prices were stopped hard at the overhead resistance (which wasn't mentioned as a potential barrier in the original call) and finally broke down later in the day it ended up turning into a good failed rally short", that would make sense. However trying to rationalize the original call by dancing around with "it WAS a trend day (just down instead of up) - never said which way it would trend" is uncharacteristically unseemly, at least IMO. Especially since technically it REALLY wasn't a "trend day" (since the "trend" would have been up), it was a failed rally day or a sell the gap day or perhaps even a possible reversal day, but not a trend day.
Hmmm...Let's see, market opened on its HIGHS and CLOSED on it's LOWS and the range expanded...seems like the definition of a TREND DAY to me...
biog - Again, the implication for a trend day is a day that trades with the trend, which in this case meant continuing higher. There are lots of days where gap ups are sold and gap downs are bought and the day starts and end on the extremes, but they're not considered "trend" days. In fact, Monday gapped open higher, tried to continue but hit solid resistance and pulled back to an intraday support level where it slogged around doing nothing for the next 3+ hours. During the last couple of hours of the day people started dumping into the close. Not a "trend day" in my book - although you maybe could argue for "counter-trend" or "reversal" day terminology - most definitely a "failed rally" day. But if you want to use a looser definition, knock yourself out. My point was simply that the call was clearly written with an expecation for a trend continuation in the direction of the gap and that it was OK that the call was wrong, since nothing's ever 100%. My objection comes in about trying to now rationalize that call as if it was right all along with a weak "I didn't say which direction" even though everything in the opening message was very clearly intending a real "trend" continuation in the direction of the gap. If you managed to read "...trend days often occur after a large gap...large gaps have a tendancy to not be filled on the day they occur...the odds are favorable that tomorrow will be one of those days that the market gods throw us a "gift" in the form of a trend day..." as meaning anything other than that by "trend day" the writer meant solely a continuing move in the direction of the gap, you're much better at reading hidden subtext than I and I congratulate you.
You aren't ticked because he "made the wrong call". You're ticked because you made the wrong choices and you don't want to take the responsibility for them. Learn the lesson and stop whining. It's done. --Db
What's your deal? Are you on Brandon's payroll? Are you his internet bodyguard? You were up to this same bs in his "Shameless Self Promotion" thread back in November...At that time you claimed Brandon was a "market wizard", but when pressed by a few others about wtf you were talking about, your resorted to the same crap you are doing now...I dont usually get involved in this kind of back and forth on this place. I attempt to post only useful insights and observations. But this is such an obvious con job going on with you coming in here on everyone of Brandon's threads to distort and doubletalk all of Brandon's original posts. Archangel is 100% correct in this case. Facts are facts. If you guys want to practice doubletalk on here and sell your service, I would then advise you to further paint your posts in vague doubletalk and "if/then" stuff, instead of the specific reference in which he says "most large gaps go unfilled on the same day"...