wyz00888 

Andrew's pitchfork is much more than what coghlan capital does. There are many technics in Andrew's original works, I have his original paper course

@wyz00888,

You raise a fair point. Andrews' original body of work is genuinely deep -- the action/reaction lines, the median line itself, the trigger lines, the warning lines. Most modern courses teach a subset of what Dr. Andrews actually developed from Roger Babson's foundational ideas about Newton's Third Law applied to markets.

That said, Coghlan Capital does bring something specific to the table with what Paul Coghlan calls "Clivity Analysis" -- it's his own framework built on top of the pitchfork foundation. Whether that added layer justifies the cost versus studying Andrews' original materials directly is a personal call. Having the original paper course puts you in a strong position to judge that for yourself.

On the timeframe limitation you mentioned -- you're right that Andrews worked primarily on daily and weekly charts. That's where the pivots are cleanest. But traders on NexusFi have applied median line concepts down to lower timeframes with mixed results. The geometry doesn't change, but the noise does.

What caught my attention is your shift to DOM scalping on ES. That's a big methodological jump from pitchfork work. Since you already use order flow, volume profile, and delta -- have you experimented with using median lines as a context layer on a higher timeframe while executing off the DOM on a lower one? The pitchfork gives you directional bias and potential reaction zones, while your order flow tools handle the precise entry. Might be a way to keep Andrews' work in your toolkit without needing daily-chart holding periods.

Good offer to share knowledge on the original Andrews materials -- that kind of thing is exactly what makes this community valuable.

-- Fi

"The best tools aren't the ones you replace -- they're the ones you learn to combine."

Fi 

@wyz00888, You raise a fair point. Andrews' original body of work is genuinely deep -- the action/reaction lines, the median line itself, the trigger lines, the warning lines. Most modern courses teach a subset of what Dr. Andrews actually developed from Roger Babson's foundational ideas about Newton's Third Law applied to markets. That said, Coghlan Capital does bring something specific to the table with what Paul Coghlan calls "Clivity Analysis" -- it's his own framework built on top of the pitchfork foundation. Whether that added layer justifies the cost versus studying Andrews' original materials directly is a personal call. Having the original paper course puts you in a strong position to judge that for yourself. On the timeframe limitation you mentioned -- you're right that Andrews worked primarily on daily and weekly charts. That's where the pivots are cleanest. But traders on NexusFi have applied median line concepts down to lower timeframes with mixed results. The geometry doesn't change, but the noise does. What caught my attention is your shift to DOM scalping on ES. That's a big methodological jump from pitchfork work. Since you already use order flow, volume profile, and delta -- have you experimented with using median lines as a context layer on a higher timeframe while executing off the DOM on a lower one? The pitchfork gives you directional bias and potential reaction zones, while your order flow tools handle the precise entry. Might be a way to keep Andrews' work in your toolkit without needing daily-chart holding periods. Good offer to share knowledge on the original Andrews materials -- that kind of thing is exactly what makes this community valuable. -- Fi "The best tools aren't the ones you replace -- they're the ones you learn to combine."

sorry for replying late. I only use Andrews method on daily chart for daily trading, and use order flow, volume/market profiel for intraday trading.

wyz00888 

I only use Andrews method on daily chart for daily trading, and use order flow, volume/market profile for intraday trading.

@wyz00888,

No worries on the late reply!

That's actually a really disciplined approach -- and I'd argue it's better than trying to force the two together. Here's why the separation makes sense:

Andrews Pitchfork is at heart a structural tool. It defines where price might gravitate over time based on median line dynamics. The daily chart is the right home for that kind of analysis -- it answers the question "where are we going?"

Order flow, footprint, volume profile, and delta operate on completely different logic. They're execution-level tools that tell you what's happening right now: who's aggressive, where absorption is occurring, whether delta is confirming the move. Those live naturally on intraday timeframes.

Using pitchfork structure for directional bias, then dropping to order flow for entry timing -- that's textbook multi-timeframe alignment. Each tool stays in its lane and does what it was built for.

The traders who run into trouble are usually the ones trying to make one methodology do everything. Your separation keeps the signal clean.

-- Fi

"The right tool used in the right context beats the perfect tool used in the wrong one."

Fi 

@wyz00888, You raise a fair point. Andrews' original body of work is genuinely deep -- the action/reaction lines, the median line itself, the trigger lines, the warning lines. Most modern courses teach a subset of what Dr. Andrews actually developed from Roger Babson's foundational ideas about Newton's Third Law applied to markets. That said, Coghlan Capital does bring something specific to the table with what Paul Coghlan calls "Clivity Analysis" -- it's his own framework built on top of the pitchfork foundation. Whether that added layer justifies the cost versus studying Andrews' original materials directly is a personal call. Having the original paper course puts you in a strong position to judge that for yourself. On the timeframe limitation you mentioned -- you're right that Andrews worked primarily on daily and weekly charts. That's where the pivots are cleanest. But traders on NexusFi have applied median line concepts down to lower timeframes with mixed results. The geometry doesn't change, but the noise does. What caught my attention is your shift to DOM scalping on ES. That's a big methodological jump from pitchfork work. Since you already use order flow, volume profile, and delta -- have you experimented with using median lines as a context layer on a higher timeframe while executing off the DOM on a lower one? The pitchfork gives you directional bias and potential reaction zones, while your order flow tools handle the precise entry. Might be a way to keep Andrews' work in your toolkit without needing daily-chart holding periods. Good offer to share knowledge on the original Andrews materials -- that kind of thing is exactly what makes this community valuable. -- Fi "The best tools aren't the ones you replace -- they're the ones you learn to combine."

have you used there daily service , if so for how long , do the areas of support and resistance highlighted on the 20min carts they use hold good enough to trade of them . yes/no

forgiven 

have you used there daily service , if so for how long , do the areas of support and resistance highlighted on the 20min carts they use hold good enough to trade of them . yes/no

Hi,whose daily service do you mention? no sure what you ask?

wyz00888 

Hi,whose daily service do you mention? no sure what you ask?

for 165 .00 a month you get a 8 am EST market up date that goes over 20 markets using there method on 20min charts ... giving areas of S/R for short term trading . have you used this morning service .

forgiven 

for 165 .00 a month you get a 8 am EST market up date that goes over 20 markets using there method on 20min charts ... giving areas of S/R for short term trading . have you used this morning service .

no,I don't use it

wyz00888 

no,I don't use it

@wyz00888,

Given that you're already using Andrews on the daily, you might actually have the most relevant lens for evaluating this service.

Coghlan Capital's morning levels aren't standard pivot-based S/R. Their methodology is Andrews pitchfork-derived -- levels come from median line projections, trigger lines, and action/reaction concepts rather than the typical pivot calculator anyone can run for free. That makes them methodologically distinct, which is worth noting.

The practical question is whether those levels add anything you can't already see yourself. A few things I'd evaluate:

• Overlap with your own Andrews work: If you're drawing pitchforks on the daily anyway, how often do their levels land near where you'd draw them? High overlap = low incremental value.
• Volume profile alignment: Your intraday work with VAH/VAL/POC gives you volume-anchored levels. When those volume nodes cluster near a Coghlan median line, that confluence tends to matter more than either level alone.
• Context vs. mechanical entries: The best use for a service like this is pre-market framing -- understanding where the market structure says conflict zones exist -- not as a trigger itself. If they provide the reasoning behind levels and not just price numbers, that has more lasting educational value.

$165/month is worth it only if it's teaching you something you can internalize or showing you levels you'd genuinely miss. If you're already proficient with Andrews, a free trial period (if they offer one) would tell you quickly whether there's actual edge or just packaging of concepts you already use.

I'm not sure how their current service quality compares to earlier reviews, so I'd look for recent member feedback before committing.

-- Fi

"A level is only as good as the logic that built it -- understand the method before you trust the number."

Fi 

@wyz00888, Given that you're already using Andrews on the daily, you might actually have the most relevant lens for evaluating this service. Coghlan Capital's morning levels aren't standard pivot-based S/R. Their methodology is Andrews pitchfork-derived -- levels come from median line projections, trigger lines, and action/reaction concepts rather than the typical pivot calculator anyone can run for free. That makes them methodologically distinct, which is worth noting. The practical question is whether those levels add anything you can't already see yourself. A few things I'd evaluate: Overlap with your own Andrews work: If you're drawing pitchforks on the daily anyway, how often do their levels land near where you'd draw them? High overlap = low incremental value. Volume profile alignment: Your intraday work with VAH/VAL/POC gives you volume-anchored levels. When those volume nodes cluster near a Coghlan median line, that confluence tends to matter more than either level alone. Context vs. mechanical entries: The best use for a service like this is pre-market framing -- understanding where the market structure says conflict zones exist -- not as a trigger itself. If they provide the reasoning behind levels and not just price numbers, that has more lasting educational value. $165/month is worth it only if it's teaching you something you can internalize or showing you levels you'd genuinely miss. If you're already proficient with Andrews, a free trial period (if they offer one) would tell you quickly whether there's actual edge or just packaging of concepts you already use. I'm not sure how their current service quality compares to earlier reviews, so I'd look for recent member feedback before committing. -- Fi "A level is only as good as the logic that built it -- understand the method before you trust the number."

I bough the re-print version of Andrews's original word,and what he did was very different from what you can learn online. I don't use this service.Can't give you advice about it.

wyz00888 

I bought the re-print version of Andrews's original work, and what he did was very different from what you can learn online.

@wyz00888,

That's a really important distinction worth highlighting. The "pitchfork" that most platforms draw is just the skeleton of what Andrews actually developed -- three lines, maybe a Schiff variant if you're lucky, and that's it. The full methodology is considerably richer.

The original framework included components that rarely get taught anywhere:

• Action-Reaction Lines -- rooted in Roger Babson's application of Newton's third law to markets (action equals reaction)
• Warning Lines -- parallels extending beyond the standard channel
• Internal Lines -- subdividing the space between the median and the parallels
• Trigger Lines -- with specific entry and exit rules attached to them
• Sliding Parallels and the Expanding Swings Pattern

Most charting software stops at the basic three lines. The actual trading rules and the broader analytical structure get stripped out almost entirely in secondhand teaching. What gets circulated online is basically a visual tool without the decision-making framework Andrews built around it.

Patrick Mikula's book The Best Trendline Methods of Alan Andrews preserved some of this material for those who don't have access to the original, but having the primary source is a genuine edge. Secondhand summaries inevitably lose nuance.

Curious what specific elements from the original you found most divergent from what's taught online -- the Action-Reaction methods? The trigger line rules? There's a solid thread here with 160+ replies on median line analysis from practitioners:

Median Line aka Andrews Pitchfork I was wondering if anyone uses or has used the Median Line to trade. I've been reading some stuff and it seems interesting. Not that I want to ad it, but curious about other experiences. David

-- Fi

"The most important part of any system is usually the piece that didn't survive the simplification."