I decided to post my few comments on my levels in a separate topic so it doesn't get lost. There are just a few observations I have made on my levels, and thought they'd be helpful.

First, by now everyone should have noticed almost always my first level is for an ABCD. Many times one should notice it only gets to my first level, then rolls over. A lot of times that says it is reacting to the first place it can, the ABCD. That implies, to me, trend strength.

Now, if an ABCD blows out, what do I usually say? Looks like a 'W3' to me. So, go back to your Elliott texts and work and see where 'W3's' usually go to. See if that fits with lines and .382's and .447's, and all the other things you all know I look for. There's level two. I expect a checkback there, and depending on the overall layout, it may end there (yes, many runs end at the end of 'W3', and no 'W4' and 'W5' happen at all, sorry all you Elliott wavers, but the market does what it does), or it may continue.

If a checkback occurs and it is then going up to a 'W5' point, where is that likely to be? There's my next level. Always? Heck no. I am watching where the lines come in, where the .382's and .447's are, or other Fibs if that is appropriate, I am using all my work. If things come together in one spot, then it's a level. If not, then I don't have a level. I am, as always, looking to see if all the concepts produce clear confluence levels. If they do, then I have my levels. If not, I don't.

Here's a key observation that's I've made about my levels, and no one has pointed it out (which is disappointing to me...). Sometimes I see a lot of turns at the first level. That implies trend strength to me. If it can blow out that ABCD (sometimes it not an ABCD, but it is still the first level), or whatever the first level is, the trend needs a bigger correction, or it may be done. If it can get to the third level, it is really going counter-trend for quite a while, and I note that.

Notice, too, though, how it seems rare the third level is taken out without some kind of a good-sized reaction. That is very useful information. Sometimes it happens, but not too often in my experience. So, what you have are three levels that each have specific significance, and fit into a bigger picture of how I evaluate what is transpiring. It's more than just levels, it's about what is unfolding. There are lots of clues in how it handles the levels. Study this.

Now today I commented in the intraday trading topic about how the levels weren't all coming together in confluences like I'd like. What was falling out? The key .300's, .382's, .447's, and so on. They were doing their own thing, not hitting with everything else. And the lines I wanted to see, they were not happening either. So, I had general ideas, but nothing really clear.

And where did it turn? Between my two key levels that I posted. And what was there? The most important .447 was right between my two levels, a clear warning sign for me. It was at 1148.50, and the high was 1149.00, and it dropped 29.50 points hard right off that. I had to be ready anywhere in there, because the levels were not as distinct as usual.

I only posted them, in haste as the action was furious, because I knew some key levels were coming into view. But I also knew they were not as distinct and clear as those I usually work with. Whether this is a market distortion because of the extreme volatility or not I can't say. But we have to trade the market as it is, and I have to decide what is clear enough, and what is not. How much has my edge formed, and is it good enough?

To me that's trading reality, and I try to talk about this in the forum, and get discussion going, but it doesn't seem to happen. Setups are a dynamic process with lots of moving parts, and at best I holistically look at all the components and see what the score is, and see if that meets my minimum criteria. It's a subjective process, and I wish there were more written on it out there, but there isn't. Nothing about what I do can be clearly quantified and then it is obvious that it is 'good enough'. It's based on experience and holistic scoring, using specific criteria. I hope this helps.

I AM DONE.TEACHING.

Thanks for all your help. You've been outstandingly generous.

Originally posted by roofer

I AM DONE.TEACHING.

One thing I learned when in college for teaching, and then in actual classroom teaching, was this. They would keep telling me we must adjust our teaching method for each individual, to figure out how each one learned, and then create an approach individually suited for each student. Some are auditory learners, some visual, some tactile, and so on. I basically said 'I teach how I teach, they must learn in the manner that I teach or the heck with them.' My best follow up to that, some two decades later, is 'So, how's that working for you?' I've found it doesn't work so good.

Now, with that said, I still cling to that concept, despite having found it doesn't work so well. I have said in here many times 'I teach how I teach'. I do what I do, and it selects out for those that can learn well from someone who teaches the way I do. The rest get forsaken. Still, I try as hard as I can, when I mentor, to be adaptable, and to see how a particular student learns, and then adapt how I teach to how they learn.

If I keep teaching the same way because it is how I teach, and many can't learn that way, it makes no sense for me to get frustrated when they don't learn. It's for me to adapt to them, not them to me. Or, I can teach how I want, and let only those that learn that way learn. As long as I see the folly in my getting upset when that's a small percentage of people, that's one possible approach.

I have learned a lot about how to teach by studying how I learn. For me, I can only learn when I can ask very specific questions, and get very detailed, specific answers back. Without this, I will never, ever grasp the intricate details of a process, be it trading, mathematics, or anything. It doesn't matter how much work I do, at some point I will never be able to reinvent the wheel and figure out what I need to.

I suspect that it would be very unlikely for anyone else to figure out some of what I have figured out in my methodology. Yes, maybe someone here and there may figure it out, but more likely they'd figure out something else new instead. So, unless I guide someone and tell them certain things, they just won't ever figure out in this lifetime exactly what I do. Close maybe, but not exactly. When I mentor I show pretty much all these things, in detail, and answer endless questions, in detail, very specifically, about every aspect of my process. Without this being made available, I see no way anyone would 'see' what I see.

That's not to say they can't garner tons of useful information from the books, posts, commentaries, and so on, as well as a 'standard' mentoring approach. I think they could. But they will not 'get' exactly what I do. For example, I can't tell everyone how many hours I have spent studying roofer's stuff. I have gained from this tremendously, perhaps more than from any other individual source. It has immensely helped my own development. But, truth be told, I can't trade like he does, and I really don't 'get' the full detail of what he does.

It's not a matter of how many examples he has shown, how many I have worked up, or the hours I've spent, as we all know I am a bulldog when it comes to working charts. I know for a fact (as close as I can ever be in this world) that I could get what he does down cold, if I had what I needed, what is missing for me. If I sat next to roofer for a week and watched him trade, and I was able to ask any detailed questions I wanted, and could get detailed answers back, and could then ask questions about those answers, all until I was satisfied, I would know exactly what he does, I'd have all my gaps filled that prevent me from understanding his process fully at this time.

I have given up on any hope I will totally understand what he does, because I don't have what I need to learn his methodology fully. How he teaches it will never allow me to take it to that level. It's not how I learn. I can take it some of the way, as I have. What he has done has been invaluable, like I feel my books are. But all it can do for me is give me things to think about, things to try to adapt and use in my own work. And that's fantastic. But it simply will never lead, for me, to a great understanding of his methodology.

My reason for posting this is because I have probably learned more in this last decade about teaching than I have learned about trading. I really think I have advanced quite a bit in understanding the process of teaching and learning. As much as I don't like it, I've really seen how teaching is about trying to figure out how a particular student learns, and not about how I want to teach them. And if I insist on teaching how I want to teach, I can expect results commensurate with that approach. No point for me to be frustrated if I choose to do it that way.

This is a very salient point for this forum because people have expressed frustration on not being able to work up examples that I suggest be worked up. I'm not so sure how much of what I show is being digested. And I'm caught up in the 'this is how I teach' mantra. It's tough to be everything to everyone, and do it via a forum venue. And know that I am in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to learning. Perhaps that is why I just decided to figure out my own stuff mostly from the ground up. Just some things for everyone to think about.

good points jim... i have said at least five times that the trader joed tried to teach me his way and i could not get it... but the CONCEPTS he taught me were invaluable...you showed me the importance of the .886...but it was my own hard work that figured out how the computers were using it to show intent... you are focused on calling the turns in snp and finding clarity there... it is my theoretical construct that the computers, based on their abilty to create billions of small incremental price changes in seconds are gaming the natural human desire to find that clarity by cycling their showing of intent through the etf's... i no longer think trading can be taught...the only way i learn something is to take a theoretical construct and then find at least a thousand examples on my own and then pour over every detail.has anyone else here actually done that?

thank you thank you thank you.

I get so scared sometimes that I can't do this.
Now I know that it can't be learned.
Now I know that it can't be taught.

That is a huge relief!
I understand what Jim and roofer have said (and actually many, many others) and must throw out everyone else's concepts and find my own.

I'm excited to start.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure that's what I said, or what I meant... What I think I was getting at is that in order to teach anything at a really high level, one must teach it in a way that the student needs. Most can't/won't do that, just as most won't do what is necessary to succeed at anything, including trading.

I was trying to show how, for example (at the risk of using someone as an example, something which frequently backfires on me and is something I keep saying I won't ever do again...), how roofer's endless selfless posting of charts provides incredible information for us all, but it isn't 'teaching'. It's more 'presentation of ideas/concepts'. Teaching would require an interactive process that meets the students needs. At least teaching as I define it nowadays, or perhaps teaching at a highly personally effective level.

I am not in any way soured to my ability to teach my methodology in a mentoring format. I think my methodology can be taught, and I think roofer's can be, too. But it would require a detailed approach from either of us. I am willing to do that for a select few people. I have no idea what roofer is or isn't willing to do, and this forum isn't the place to ask him. It's immaterial, anyway, to the point.

I can't say that anyone who would be taught my methodology would fully get it, or make money, just as I can't say that anyone who enters Harvard Medical School will become a doctor. All I can say is I think Harvard is capable of teaching some to become doctors. It is a teachable skill, and some succeed. They just couldn't do it with some books and a forum, or for everyone.

The point of this forum is to act as a supplement to one's education, to help with the development process. A place where questions can be asked, and ideas tossed around for discussion. Not really much more. I was trying to explain a bit about the learning process, and what is realistic. I think far too many people think they can become traders from books and forums. I think they have their place, but it's only a small part of it.

I mentioned how I decided to discover my own techniques because I couldn't find a good teacher. I lay that blame on not only the industry, which is full of scammers and charlatans, but also on how few really good teachers there are out there. I am also a creative person who does best with his own things. But, just because roofer and I both created our own methodologies doesn't make me think most people should do that.

I do think people need to 'make their techniques their own', but that doesn't mean create the methodology from the ground up, inventing new things all the way. Reinvent the wheel. I have one student who is extremely successful in business. He knows how to leverage his time and resources. He does not have a lot of interest in reinventing the wheel. He wants to pay for things already invented. He wants to leverage his time and be shown a potentially workable methodology.

He will adapt it to his own style and personality, but he wants to be taught all the nuts and bolts, in detail. He doesn't have the time, or desire, to create new things for himself, if he can pay someone to teach him the skills. The only issue for him was finding someone who he felt was a good teacher, teaching something compatible with his style, and something he felt was robust. I agree 100% with his approach.

As odd as this may sound, I am not a big proponent of promoting the idea that every trader must create their own technique from the ground up, and develop their own methodology. In fact, I think very few can do that. I think one of the illusions that roofer labors under (sorry, roofer, don't get mad, I'm just calling it as I see it, no offense intended) is that everyone is like he is, or joed is, or I am, in that with enough work clarity will come, and they will develop something really great. I think we did it, but I think most can't. I know that's harsh to say, but I think that it's true.

That doesn't mean that I don't think those same people can't be traders, or can't learn a methodology, or can't adapt an existing one to their own style, it means I think they can't invent things on the level that we have done. I think we are exceptional. Maybe that's hogwash. Maybe we aren't. But I know that many of the things I have done, mathematically or in other settings, did seem to be exceptional, and few were able to duplicate them. There is no reason for me to think that most could duplicate my level of inventiveness in trading concepts, or yours.

At the risk of getting too far off topic here (and of people thinking I was trying to brag, or some such nonsense as that..), let me tell a quick story, as best as I remember it from decades ago. Long ago I took the national freshman chemistry exam. This is an exam that is given nationwide to college freshman in chemistry. The raw score maximum was 80, if I recall correctly. I scored 18 points over the score that was the 100th percentile. In other words, out of an 80 total maximum, I could have scored 18 less and still been in the 100th percentile in the nation.

I looked at the distribution curve for my college, and there was this one point way, way off to the right (with no one else even near the 100th percentile), and that point was me. My professors said they had never seen or heard of anything like it. What I'm getting at is that this is what I bring to the table. No one at my college, and few in the nation, could do what I could do. Whoop-de-do, big f'in deal. But, for me to think others are like me, that makes no sense. Others aren't like me.

All my life I've had what others think is an incredible memory. Not 'photographic', but good. For example, I used to amuse people at parties by memorizing a 150 digit random number. No, it's not 6,000 verses from some big literary work, but still not too bad. Point is not how cool Jim is, it's that I thought, for the longest time, that everyone remembered things as easily as I did (by the time I did the party trick I was starting to think it might not be that usual...). I just assumed it was 'normal'.

It's hard to see what we can do as possibly exceptional. If we assume others have equal abilities, and we take that thought into our teaching, I don't think we will be that successful. I'm not saying that we, as teachers, should get tricked by those who won't do the work by coddling them, but we should also understand what each student brings to the table, and create a teaching environment that is suited to that situation.

Now, I don't want anyone to take any of this 'wrong'. I am not saying you (you being anyone reading this) aren't exceptional, or that I am 'better' in any way. I don't want to be discouraging, or to say that you can't be successful. But if I do have some 'gifts' that I bring to the table. I wouldn't be doing anyone justice to say 'just do what I did'. I think roofer doesn't realize what he brings to the table, from his natural abilities, to his ability to do hard work, to his family background, to his incredibly long saddle time developing experience, and so on.

It's more than just 'doing the work'. That a big, critical part of it, but it isn't the whole process, in my opinion. I just don't think everyone should spin off now and start trying to create their own methodology from the ground up, even with a loose foundation based on techniques already available. Just my two cents. Let's hope I don't have to follow up with a post clarifying my clarifying post...

my friend joed likes to say i think like a roofer in my trading... one piece of slate at a time installed to the best of my ability.

just showing this...the linear geo tools couldn't really show a clear area to focus on, yet this one has a pattern with its completion area having supporting synergy with non-linear methods. The adjusted or regular line tools here were a non-factor in pointing to a trade area.
Thinking outside of the box, this gave me a nice trade opportunity and successful results that I would have otherwise not been able to see and trust this location for a trade trigger. try to redraw the framework for this pattern setup,in a not too complicated way,with linear tools and to me nothing really jumps out using these methods. that would be a ghost area.
Also note the nice scale out process here ....
I am just presenting the concept of non-linear ideas...not teaching. Do whatever you want with it for your education or information. hope this helps kane forum members.
T
5min EUR.USD cash on 09/08/11

here some context for that pattern...see if you can find some linear synergy... I couldn't put together a decent PTA using the linear tools...yet the trade was there to take...ghost PTA 2/3rd of the time.
T

now the best ML set i could get was this one , but what do you do with the spikes through the ML //? offsets? or reflection lines?....it is still ambiguous...and wich framework to trust?...not a stable set IMO. but with some more creative ways you could actually get something but would that be a trustworthy set? a set that can be obtained on a consistent basis? I don't know but from my experience with this type of line construction I would have to say pass or just standby for another PTA...

we are often most critical of that which we fear most in ourselves... note the nature of bruce m. posts today.out of control..not tolerating any differences or questions.joed always said that forums self destruct in such a way... i feel bad for our generous host having to watch this....