Alright. Understood. But I still don't get what you're trying to tell me.
I can observe without any lines at all on my chart how the NQ is mean reverting. I can see at a glance the current Weekly channel. I don't necessarily need the channel marked on my chart to "see" it. What are you getting at?
Are you simply saying to try to see it without the guidance of the lines? And that's it? Maybe I'm misovercomplexifying what you're trying to say. LOL.
Last edited by DannyOcean; July 2nd, 2015 at 06:58 PM.
If you don't need the lines and the channels, they serve no purpose. You may prefer the approach taken by Wyckoff, the jist of which is provided in Appendix D.
I know very little about you other than a couple of posts at TL. The SLA isn't for everyone, nor is it meant to be. If you're not happy with the way things are going for you, a statement of your goals and objectives would be helpful. Wanting to know what I would do in this or that situation isn't pertinent. What matters is what you would do, and why, which will depend on what you want and what you're willing to do to get it.
I like having them there, personally. I am happy with the way things are headed, especially after seeing how your most recent charts were very similar to the ones I posted. SLA tells you what to do, AMT tells you where to do it. I get that.
The only difficulty I am currently having is the ambiguity in finding the pertinent channel. Especially during the 11,12, and 13 market. On pp. 45-46 there are channels within the channel. And on the original SLA.doc you released, there was a chart that I believe you may have taken out of the most recent edition, where you had two paragraphs in parentheses talking about the "seeming ill-fit of this trend channel". That channel is different than the one you had posted earlier in the book. I'm just struggling deciphering the ambiguity in finding the correct channel.
The "channels within channels" are not channels but demand lines which are drawn when price exits the top of what had been the trend channel and doesn't return to the lower limit. This is explained on pp 44 and 45. But that was all two years ago. The purpose of it was/is to show how we got here from the beginning, in '09, and to explain why it is important to know the weekly trend. Those trends are of no concern now.
The "pertinent channel" is the weekly channel beginning in June '13, particularly as we appear to be headed toward the lower limit of it at 4265. A rally would take us back to 4550. Those are the only two numbers that someone trading a longer interval need concern himself with. If he jumps into trades in the middle of nowhere, hoping that price will carry him toward one side or the other, the stopouts, one after the other, will do considerable damage to his account balance. If he can't wait for those extremes, then he needs to look at smaller intervals. If he can't trade smaller intervals, then he has a conflict that he'll have to resolve before going further.
Before I take this 60m stuff any further, I'd like to clarify something first.
My thinking with the original charts I posted in this thread were to find the range, wait for the breakout, and trade the retracement. That just comes easily to me and fits me personally. I love it. I get the action and intentions behind it as explained by AMT. Evidently I was just using too long of an interval.
Could I do this with a 5 or 15min interval like I would the 1min? The 15min is just easier to "see" for me. You suggested at ET that I could use a smaller interval to trade the breakouts and retracements rather than waiting for the 60m breakout and retracement. Waiting for the Weekly extremes seems like a little too much waiting for my liking.
Last edited by DannyOcean; July 3rd, 2015 at 01:18 PM.