Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
@sysot1t: I have quoted six of your last seven posts in this thread.
You tell us that
- information has been shared in other threads
- that settings are self-explanatory
- that we should use the search function
- that we should read page 13 of the book
- that I have bastardized the ACD method
- that you would be interested in my version of the method only if I had made millions
- that I should read the book again and see the differences for myself
Look, I am a peaceful person and it takes a lot to annoy me, but you have succeeded.
None of your posts contains any useful information.
Don't you think that you could have answered the questions in a more polite way by showing a little bit less of arrogance?
There is a huge overnight gap, which exceeds the average daily range. See chart attached. Such a gap typically requires a retracement for testing the markets intentions. In rare case the gap can even be closed, see close below the pivot range. I think that the market should retrace at least half of the gap and reach the pivot level S2.
Would you say that exceeding the Daily range, particularly exceeded more so past the noise and to the downside, put odds in favor of a snap back TOWARDS the prior trading range to the upside?
Or do you typically see the market just go stagnant and flat-footed after that daily range expansion?
Fat Tails, amongst other is one the most helpful individuals on this forum and contributes greatly. With his tools I make money consistently so why you choose to be such an awkward, arrogant person just beggers belief. If you cannot contribute in a positive way surely it's bets you do not at all.
I guess if I wrote lots of code and went on and on, I would be helpful too... but I am not like that... and though I welcome your own inclusion on the argument FT and I are having... I am not sure what allows you to categorize me... but arent you glad that in the USA we have freedom of expression, which allows you to say whatever you think....
moving on.. I will not honor any further replies on this line of discussion.. so we return to the ACD method at hand... no sense on wasting time any further on things we wont agree upon.
I am laughing out loud at your comments... hilarious... anyhow, I will address one by one your points..
- information has been shared in other threads - that settings are self-explanatory
use the search function.. and look at your previous posts... if you look at the ACvalues.pdf that I also shared with you long, long ago on private emails, you will see the session settings are not always ETH or RTH, but rather custom sessions combining both at times... I cant explain it simpler than that... there is a reason why I stop collaborating with you on the indicators... you were going off on your own tangent and I wasnt interested on altering something that to me has a solid foundation and lots of results with something someone else wanted to do ...
- that we should read page 13 of the book
did you bother to read the question for which the response was intended? did you bother to read page 13 of the book? I would think not... otherwise, you wouldnt have bothered to include this.. then again, we all have our own understanding of things...
- that I have bastardized the ACD method - that you would be interested in my version of the method only if I had made millions - that I should read the book again and see the differences for myself
if your "indicators" followed the original method, i would be using them... that simple....but they do not... you are tracking other things, made changes to formulas, etc... as I said within my previous reply.. anything not original is a bastardization of the method.. which is how I interpret any changes to the method.. so calling anything other than the original ACD method ACD, is invalid.. wouldnt you agree? btw, I am not saying your bastardization does not work... as it might for others.. lets be clear on that point...
If you dont think you have bastardize the method, that is fine with me... perhaps we should call it something else... FT ACD... you came up with a new one that works and has created millions (I am being quite sarcastic btw)... my point is, not the original method... and by you asking what the differences were, I found it that you were playing "dumb"... and we both know you are not, as you are quite intelligent as per all your posts going into so many scientific details all the time... basically, your posts are encyclopiad response as times...
anyhow, moving on...
now... I will give you one point..
Don't you think that you could have answered the questions in a more polite way by showing a little bit less of arrogance?
absolutely... yes, I could have answered in a more polite way.... In that I will agree with you... I disagree on the arrogance part, since there was no arrogance but rather annoyance.. as I was annoyed by the replies you were posting which as I said had you playing "dumb" on them... so polite is all in the eye of the beholder... I didnt consider your responses polite neither.. but you dont hear me crying about it...
now... I will not honor any further replies on this line of discussion.. so we return to the ACD method at hand... no sense on wasting time any further on things we wont agree upon... if you have any issues, feel free to send me a PM or an email..
I agree, we should get back to the discussion of the ACD method. I was annoyed, I am not annoyed any more.
My question was serious. I just wanted to understand, where my indicators do not follow the original method. I am thinking that they do follow the method exactly, but maybe I am mistaken.
But, as you said that they don't, I am simply curious and would like to understand where I may have introduced involuntary changes. I really would appreciate, if you took the time to explain the differences.