Why Is The Obvious Not So Obvious?

It does not work that way, read the habits pdf.

J_S

 

Is that a riddle too?
Where is the habits pdf? search function on ET does not give an answer.

 

It appears you are posting without reading!

See a few posts back.

J_S

 

It's the answer to your #4711 post.

For the previous question post #4685, my answer is the lack of display clarity. For why the level was chosen, it's where the control has been lost by the other side.

 

If someone said 1950 is now on the cards, what would make someone come to that conclusion?

J_S

 

This one is hard. I saw it and have had my line on it. Perhaps watch for those who were left behind before? Give me some time to think about it.

Ed: Was it because 1 side had taken over and subsequent attempt by other side failed?

 

You will have to be very clear, as I am a bit slow.

So,

No, it is a very simple method that is applicable to any timeframe, and even though we know the only certain thing is uncertainty, we still need to focus on the most probable outcomes, so if it happens sooner rather than later, we are not surprised and can take the appropriate action.

Risk control at all times is obvious, but to identify low risk entries, you must know one when you see one, which of course is a certain price level.

I take it this makes sense?

J_S

 

Hi JS, I am intrigued... I think that 1950 is likely as the last pullback on the way down was about there...

Alternatively (but not necessarily so), it is a range matter as 1950 is about 100 higher than 1850, while 2100 is about 100 higher than 2000...

as VWAP is well used...

VO

 

Edit:
J_Smith: "No, it is a very simple method that is applicable to any timeframe"
Hmm.. so I'm on the wrong track...

 

JS,

Yes, it does. Thanks.

Edit: I got it. That's the price level w/ lowest risk at the corresponding entry. Damn. I'm so thick.