View Single Post
  #474 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2008, 02:11 PM
Tess Tess is offline
Master Contributor and Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: American in UK
Posts: 419
Default

Hello John,

Price merely has to re-visit the area of significance for me to become interested in taking a level on. I'm not one for waiting around to witness excessive confirmation to be honest.

If a previously strong level or zone of s&r comes into view, & I get a signal from a specific set-up to engage, then I'll take it on providing it affords sensible risk & reasonable profit potential.

Jocelyn (& her crew) usually engages via the smaller timeframes as & when a level of interest comes back on the radar. It's to probe & test the level really, just to ensure it's playing ball & is setting up to repeat it's previous behaviour traits.

As an example, I'll throw up a couple charts of Cable to better explain my comments.

The 4 hour charts (2) highlight the specific zone of interest & the smaller 5min chart magnifies the levels for clearer decision making.

Essentially, I'm looking to see if this pair is displaying any propensity to "repeat" the shorting behaviour at this area of previous supply.

Jos has been playing the channel (long from the bottom - short off the top) & will continue to do so until it closes above-below on a daily candle basis with a solid test.

We don't observe Bollinger Bands John. Neither do we have any time for Gann, Elliot Wave, Moving Averages or any other supposed "market enhancing" nonsense.

Price action & it's behaviour on & around previous levels or zones of supply & demand is all that interests us. Understanding & interpreting the psychology of market participants as & when prices begin vibrating around these levels tells us all we need to know.

Anything else (indicators) is merely an unecessary distraction.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg supply1.jpg (39.4 KB, 62 views)
File Type: jpg supply2.jpg (34.4 KB, 60 views)
File Type: jpg supply3.jpg (61.6 KB, 57 views)

Last edited by Tess; 03-17-2008 at 02:14 PM.
Reply With Quote