I hear ya’.
It’s not what you wanted me to say, doubtless, because it’s not specific at all, but in general, as you gain experience, you’ll probably find that the proportion of the time they’re ignored by prices gradually reduces [I]to some extent[/I], and that you’re never even going to get close to being right all the time.
It may also help you to concentrate on drawing them on higher time-frame charts and carrying them over to the lower time-frame charts on which you’re trading. Yes, this can make them more “remote” (perhaps) but it can also make them more “significant levels” and increase your strike-rate with them. Just a suggestion.
Reading Al Brooks’ books would also help you in this regard. (It’s not easily done: they’re not very well written in terms of style and comprehensibility, but their [U]content[/U] is tremendous.)
Sorry, I can’t help you with that. I don’t “believe in it” any more than I believe in Fibonacci, pivot points, astrology or homeopathy. It’s all pseudo-scientistic mumbo-jumbo to me. If people are somehow going to produce “concrete numbers of pips” like that, as if there were some ostensible objectivity about them, surely they should at least be related to the [B][U]volatility[/U][/B], to have any credence?! (They’re going to vary hugely, from instrument to instrument, as well.)
I meant “by experience” - not really “other than experience”. It’s a question of putting in the hours of screen-time, really. Malcolm Gladwell has written a book about this. Not about trading at all, but about “becoming very good at anything by putting in your 10,000 hours”. Sobering thought.)
Good - I think that’s $200 very well spent. I found it very helpful.
Subjectively! :8:
Edited to add: I really don’t have a quick answer to this, but will (a) be interested to see what others say, and (b) return to the thread tonight, when I have more time, and post again [I][U]if[/U][/I] I think of anything potentially helpful to say. Don’t hold your breath …