|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello Nick,
I agree in general but I am curious what you mean by "price action".
S/R levels, Fibs, depth of retracements/lenghth of moves, etc. Just
curious.
Best regards,
Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Monday, July 15, 2002, 7:52:21 AM, you wrote:
NA> Exactly! imvho if you do not have an intimate grasp of price action you
NA> will never make it to major league let alone 'star performer' (talking about
NA> discretionary trading here). Once you have a really deep understanding of
NA> price movement you find that most of the squiggly lines obscure what price
NA> is trying to tell you.
NA> As for markets changing I'd say no, however I'd agree they exhibit somewhat
NA> different characters. Things like program trading must have some effect. But
NA> if a price is going from a point A to a point B there are only so many ways
NA> it can do that. Some times it moves 'better' than others. If you take charts
NA> from the early part of this century price was moving in those self same ways
NA> then.
NA> Each to there own of course.
NA> Cheers,
NA> Nick.
NA> ____Snip____
NA> However, I can tell you that I still use the same entries, the same
NA> timeframes, the same methods to determine the market's S/R levels, and the
NA> same techniques to manage a trade - which are all based on PRICE action (and
NA> I still despise any and all indicators/oscillators). The underlying
NA> foundation has not changed at all, and that is really the point I was trying
NA> to make in my earlier post because there is a huge difference between
NA> adapting to subtle changes in the market (consciously or subconsciously)
NA> versus constantly being on a quest for New methodologies. If that's the
NA> road someone is traveling down then they will never become proficient at any
NA> of them.
NA> Bob
NA> ----- Original Message -----
NA> From: "Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
NA> To: "Omega List" <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
NA> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 8:55 PM
NA> Subject: Re: Work 50-70 hours a week
>> > I disagree completely on having to be on a constant quest for new
>> > methods. The markets may change in terms of bear/bull and other
>> > things like volatility but the Price action doesn't. I've been
>> > trading the same methods for years and while I have added a wrinkle
>> > here and there as I become more experienced, the underlying
>> > methodology has remained and will remain constant.
>>
>> I suspect you have changed more than you realize. The markets DO
>> change and they DO act in different ways, and a successful trader
>> must adapt to those changes to continue to succeed. I'd guarantee
>> your trading methods are not identical to those you used in early
>> 2000. The broad-brush approach may be the same, but I'd bet a lot
>> that your fine-detail implementation of those techniques has changed.
>>
>> A good discretionary trader is so "in tune" with the market that he
>> may not even notice its character changing, and may not think about
>> the changes he makes to his approach. It all happens subconsciously
>> as the trader flows with the market. I doubt ANY successful trader,
>> discretionary or no, can succeed for long without rolling with the
>> market's punches.
>>
>> A mechanical trader's system is cast in stone, so he can't "fudge"
>> his approach without being aware of it. A mechanical trader may be
>> more susceptable to market changes, especially if his system does not
>> adapt. I'd believe that mechanical traders have to spend more time
>> refining and adjusting their approaches, especially since they then
>> cast those approaches in stone and expect them to work without ANY
>> changes.
>>
>> On the other hand, a mechanical trader doesn't have to spend his time
>> staring at screens during the trading day, because the system does
>> that for him. A mechanical trader doesn't have to spend time
>> watching the pre-open, or trying to decipher news events, or doing
>> many of the other activities that occupy a discretionary trader's
>> time. Different approaches pay their dues in different ways, but
>> they all pay their dues.
>>
>> Gary
>>
|