|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Kevin!
At 10:44 PM 1/26/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>I guess I've assumed that the thrust necessary for declaration of a B&B was
>possibly less than that required for a DRPO (though I've often heard mention
>of the possibility of playing a DRPO once an associated B&B has been
>completed). I do believe the definition of the B&B requires fewer thrust
>bars than that of the DRPO.
Nope! Same thrust requirement.
>One of the reasons that I wrongly assumed the thrust here was adequate for a
>B&B setup was the appearance of the MACD. What am I missing here? Both
>lines are well below zero and the faster one is well separated from the
>slower one.
What are you comparing it to? I don't have enough data bars to judge, sorry..
>Another reason was the appearance of the "thrust" on the monthly chart of
>the Dow Jones Industrial Average from late 1998 to mid 1999. I believe I
>recall that the "thrust" on that chart was considered adequate enough for
>Joe DiNapoli to announce that the following "DRPO" was most ominous. If I
>were to compare the "thrusts" on that chart with that on the daily chart of
>DUK, well, I think you get my point.
Daily and monthly thrusts are different, and thrust on one trading symbol
is not thrust on another. You allow more slack on a monthly chart, purely
because it's very difficult for a monthly chart to sustain the kind of thrust
you can see for 8-16 monthly bars (thrusting for 300 daily bars!)..
>It could well be that what is necessary for thrust on a daily chart differs
>from that which is necessary on a monthly chart. I don't recall reading
>that in the book or reading it in any other forum. Edify me if that is the
>case.
It's been on the DiNapoli forums and is covered in private seminars.
>You've gotten me all excited about this 90% success rate for B&B's.
>However, if that is only for specific setups that are only likely to occur
>every few years, and require special dispensation not apparent to the
>unannointed... :-)
I don't want to quote an exact 90%, what I mean is it is a very good
trading pattern. Just because trader "A" attains "x" percent does not
mean trader "b" can do the same thing. I think I've said many times,
these percentages are misleading. Each trader is unique.
> > I would expect a move to .618, very
> > probable.
>
>OK. Would you see that as enough information to trade it on that basis,
>and, if so, where would your stop and profit target be? I find I learn a
>lot more if this sort of thing is pointed out *before* the pattern plays
>out.
I'm not sure I'd trade this chart at all. I'm picky...
> If you're looking for how to calculate
> > the profit on a Railroad, A=low of 1/12/01
> > B=high of 1/12/01, C=low of 1/16/01
>
>
>I guess that means that you *would* consider that a RRT setup. Is the high
No, but if it were, that's how you would pick the data points for this RRT.
>of 1/12/01 considered to be the "B" of the RRT because it is the high of
>1/12/01 or because it is *that*, as well as the low of 1/9/01, or both - or
>for some other reason?
>
>On that subject, do you feel that there is anything in the book to allow one
>to label A,B, and C for this RRT as you have above? I just dug back through
>the book again looking for definitive rules and came up short.
The ABC points vary, based on the chart, it's covered in the private seminars.
I'm sure the book shows how to pick ABC points, RRT's are not any different.
>What would A,B, and C be if there were no shallow retracement such as on
Yes, this could make it different. You may have to switch time-frames
to discern the ABC in a RRT.
>How is "R", the point of recognition determined? Especially if one varies
>the time frame in an attempt to make the RRT look right, it seems that "R"
>is a pretty nebulous concept. But, I've been wrong before. :-)
Hehehe. If it's too confusing, don't trade it. "R" is when the RRT is
recognized,
if you don't know when that is, you haven't recognized it, so don't trade it!
"R" will be when the tracks are in place.
>I anxiously await the answers to all these questions - or at least
>clarification for why I'm full of s--- for asking them. :-)
Nooooo! You're doing fine.
-Neal.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/_/_/980898902/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
dlevels-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
|