all dis arguin', gets me hot n' bovvurd
Right, well find us some of said people who move the market please talking about the line they're looking at on a chart
The following scenario is pure supposition on my part and it'd be good if someone in the business could say if it's wildly off the mark.
Shares in ABCplc are standing at £10. A fund manager of a decent sized fund wants a substantial position in ABCplc around this price but is not keen to pay more than £11. He puts his very large order to you, his broker, and you know that your head will be on the block if you can't get it filled within the limit he has set and at or below VWAP. So what do you do? Presumably, in broad terms: snatch all you can around £10 whilst trying to disguise the fact that you're an active buyer. Then, although you might be taking lots below VWAP on the way, you stop buying at £11 and maybe stick in some eye-catching sell orders above the price to dissuade buyers. If your tactics have worked and the price does fall back then you'll be buying some a bit below VWAP on the way back and again start snatching all you can get if £10 comes again. And so on until you have filled the line.
So, unless this scenario is a total load of cobblers, a chartist is going to see and draw S/R lines on a chart which have validity for as long as you are engaging in this activity (and therein lies the rub ).
jon
But there is also "S&R" on the random chart below. So I suppose its about distinguishing the levels that are being studied and are due to group behaviour to those that are random
The following scenario is pure supposition on my part and it'd be good if someone in the business could say if it's wildly off the mark.
Shares in ABCplc are standing at £10. A fund manager of a decent sized fund wants a substantial position in ABCplc around this price but is not keen to pay more than £11. He puts his very large order to you, his broker, and you know that your head will be on the block if you can't get it filled within the limit he has set and at or below VWAP. So what do you do? Presumably, in broad terms: snatch all you can around £10 whilst trying to disguise the fact that you're an active buyer. Then, although you might be taking lots below VWAP on the way, you stop buying at £11 and maybe stick in some eye-catching sell orders above the price to dissuade buyers. If your tactics have worked and the price does fall back then you'll be buying some a bit below VWAP on the way back and again start snatching all you can get if £10 comes again. And so on until you have filled the line.
So, unless this scenario is a total load of cobblers, a chartist is going to see and draw S/R lines on a chart which have validity for as long as you are engaging in this activity (and therein lies the rub ).
jon
On Scotty2Cues random walk chart:
Support and Resistance levels should not be assumed to work or not because the chart appears as if it worked after the fact. If you want to test if something is relevant as support or resistance, you mark it ahead of time, then simulate into the future and observe whether price reacts there. Then you do this plenty of times and get an idea of how often it works or doesn't. Apply the same method to your random chart. Do you think if you draw a low on your chart you can expect it to hold as support when you simulate further, that it will bounce within a point of the line? Or when it does break through, price will come back and support will become resistance, again within a point or two?
Shurely some mishtake...
You are being a bit harsh here Dionysus. No matter how good you are at reading order flow, when it comes to a level, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Period. For you, for me, for everyone. Even if your reading of the tape is incredible, and gives you a 95% chance of being correct about whether it holds or not, there is always the chance some big player can scupper your plans, or some news breaks and you're in the 5% wrong.
So once you accept that it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't, you look for ways to make you correct more often. BBMac, picks a level that he believes will hold. He looks for confluence with fibs or trendlines to make that a more important level. He also looks at what price is doing around the level, and if all those factors are in place, he trades it.
Please stop trying to pretend that you are doing anything different. Dionysus, picks a level that he thinks may hold. He then waits for price to get there, and looks for confluence with DOM (or input whatever else you use) and then he trades it. Same process, just different idea of confluence between you and BBMac.
So in your 1,2,3,4. Well 1) everyone faces, no matter how they trade. No certainties in this business. 2) Rather than say everything you need to know is on the chart, I'd prefer it as "just using the charts, there is enough to make good profits". Lots of things outside the charts can help us so 2) and 3) is certainly not something I'd agree with. Just knowing when NFP is, can help us.
Not quite. Instruments are different and have their own nuances. But the general behaviour of most, is the same (major currencies, indices, oil etc. in this statement). Nuances different, general behaviour the same. The same is true of timeframes. Different nuances for sure, but most have similar behaviour. Can I see trends on daily and 5 minute? Yes, and if you remove scale they look quite similar. Can I see support become resistance on daily and 5 min? Again yes. Can I see 'crashes'? Yes they occur quite frequently on the smaller timeframes. If your method doesn't work on several markets, then I would be wary of it.We still come back to the point that many people are saying that all markets are the same, all timeframes are the same and a single analysis technique can be used to trade them all.
No it doesn't at all, you're reading what you want to. If it had finished with "..make good profits...and so then there is no need to look into anything else" then you would be correct. It doesn't say that at all. It is enough to get by in America with English and Spanish. It would be great of course if I could speak English, Spanish, Italian, Chinese etc. but if you wanted to get by there, the two most useful languages would be English and Spanish (Money management and Reading Price). Of course I always want to improve. But I am not going to attempt to learn a dozen languages before I can speak one fluently, and then two fluently and then three and so on.As for ""just using the charts, there is enough to make good profits" - this implies a level of laziness and lack of inquisitiveness.
You are being a bit harsh here Dionysus. No matter how good you are at reading order flow, when it comes to a level, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Period. For you, for me, for everyone. Even if your reading of the tape is incredible, and gives you a 95% chance of being correct about whether it holds or not, there is always the chance some big player can scupper your plans, or some news breaks and you're in the 5% wrong.
So once you accept that it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't, you look for ways to make you correct more often. BBMac, picks a level that he believes will hold. He looks for confluence with fibs or trendlines to make that a more important level. He also looks at what price is doing around the level, and if all those factors are in place, he trades it.
Please stop trying to pretend that you are doing anything different. Dionysus, picks a level that he thinks may hold. He then waits for price to get there, and looks for confluence with DOM (or input whatever else you use) and then he trades it. Same process, just different idea of confluence between you and BBMac.
So in your 1,2,3,4. Well 1) everyone faces, no matter how they trade. No certainties in this business. 2) Rather than say everything you need to know is on the chart, I'd prefer it as "just using the charts, there is enough to make good profits". Lots of things outside the charts can help us so 2) and 3) is certainly not something I'd agree with. Just knowing when NFP is, can help us.
Not quite. Instruments are different and have their own nuances. But the general behaviour of most, is the same (major currencies, indices, oil etc. in this statement). Nuances different, general behaviour the same. The same is true of timeframes. Different nuances for sure, but most have similar behaviour. Can I see trends on daily and 5 minute? Yes, and if you remove scale they look quite similar. Can I see support become resistance on daily and 5 min? Again yes. Can I see 'crashes'? Yes they occur quite frequently on the smaller timeframes. If your method doesn't work on several markets, then I would be wary of it.
You're doing it again. Not reading properly. Take your time and read what is written, and understand it. Don't think that it is saying something more than is written, I write what I mean, not more. You're wrong about the 50%, that's a ridiculous statement if you think about it. Why on earth would every single price point have a 50% chance of going up as well as down? But put that aside.This is an interesting comment. Using any single TA technique in isolation will give you a 50% win rate if your stops and targets are equal.
Now you say that a method that uses charts plus additional information and yields a 95% hit rate is effectively the same because "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't".
And please show me where I've said that. Point it out. Dionysus, you're a smart guy, so I'm surprised at the way that you continue to read what you want to read. Several times in only a few posts I've had to correct you for putting words in my posts that aren't there.If you told me that there was a piece of information out there (technical or fundamental) that would see my current method yield 5% more winners, there is no way on earth I'd say "I make good profits with what I use, no thanks".
So do I. All the time. Always have. Never said I didn't. And as for ways to improve and look for other things, note I wrote "and of course I am very interested in your methods" and am always looking to learn. Again, you don't want to read that, you want to read that I don't care about improvingMostly though, from what I have seen in the traders I know, they review their winners & losers and use that as the basis to evolve. I have yet to meet someone that says, I will do anything to improve my trading, as long as it only involves looking at a chart.
You're doing it again. Not reading properly. Take your time and read what is written, and understand it. Don't think that it is saying something more than is written, I write what I mean, not more. You're wrong about the 50%, that's a ridiculous statement if you think about it. Why on earth would every single price point have a 50% chance of going up as well as down? But put that aside.
Did I say it is "the same"? Did I say 50% is the same as 95%? Or was my point that no matter what the % is, there are no guarantees. So everything "sometimes works and sometimes doesn't". So given that everything sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, then we do our best to maximise the chance of it working. I believe I said this when I wrote "you look for ways to make you correct more often", but you chose to ignore that and place your own words in my post and imply that I don't care whether I win 50% of the time or 95% of the time, lol. One of the methods to improve chances is confluence in my opinion. That does not have to be chart only confluence. If you think the fundamentals suggest and upward move, and you think support will hold, and there is a trendline, and long term/short term trend is up, and the COT report suggests it will go up, and you see something in depth of market, and you're reading the volume and there is some candlestick price action to suggest it is going up etc etc, then this is a trade based on confluence. What are you doing that is outside of this? Or are you just using confluence of different things, some of them not in the chart? Nothing wrong with that, but I just don't see a difference. If it is more successful then good for you. Maybe I'll do something similar one day.
And please show me where I've said that. Point it out. Dionysus, you're a smart guy, so I'm surprised at the way that you continue to read what you want to read. Several times in only a few posts I've had to correct you for putting words in my posts that aren't there.
So do I. All the time. Always have. Never said I didn't. And as for ways to improve and look for other things, note I wrote "and of course I am very interested in your methods" and am always looking to learn. Again, you don't want to read that, you want to read that I don't care about improving
Now, in future, if you want to make up what people are writing so you can argue with it, please create another account and argue with yourself. Because it is tiring to have to explain myself, simply because you're either lacking in comprehension, or you've already made up your mind what you want to argue with, and so you see that in my posts even when it isn't there.
What is it you want from the thread now?
This is a fairly simple question. Try a backtest of any single piece of TA used in isolation. This could be buying MACD on oversold, MA crossover, reversal at a point of support & resistance. Use that in isolation and without any other analysis. Put in a stop and target that are equal distance from the entry point
When you do this testing, you will find that you have developed a system that will win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time.
Try it - it will be an eye opener.
I agree with the concept of confluence but only when it is holistic. When you look at a chart, you are looking at a single set of data. There are things that will have an impact on price that are outside that single set of data. The order book for instance is not in the chart. The flow of trades on Time & Sales is not in the chart. Goldman Sachs being investigated for fraud is not on the chart.
If you yourself have already gotten out of the 'only the charts' trap, then I commend you. If however, you think you are looking at different things by applying different things to the chart, then your horizons need to widen.
If you want to see another dimension in action and you are actually available to be at a screen during market hours, get a trial subscription to "flyonthewall.com". Ignore the screen based stuff, just go to the audio section. By doing this, you have given yourself nothing additional to look at but you have something to listen to. You will have added another dimension to your trading. I know people with Bloomberg that subscribe to Fly On The Wall - these guys are that fast at delivering news.
After 2 weeks of this (which is how long I think the trial lasts), you will agree that looking ONLY at charts for 'confluence' is ensuring you miss many opportunities as well as seeing you make trades that you would have stayed out of.
Spy74 put up a good link. Have a look at this section - http://www.proptraders.net/free-prop-trader-training/ look at the diversity in the things they tell you to pay attention to.
Sorry if I have misread you - this is not my intent. We all come from different perspectives and so naturally, anything we read gets read from a specific perspective.
What I was hoping from this thread was for people to actually put forward what makes S&R work/fail in the specific environment (market, timeframe) in which they work. I am rather surprised the argument came to "all environments are the same" and a bunch of generalities and some surpising information on chocolate bars.