C long/short spotting - should we have a dedicated thread?

[Shadow]

I once had a very wise man once tell me sumfin that has stuck with me. He said, “ learn how to step on a man’s shoes with out messing up his shoeshine”. If ya think about it for just a second it makes sense.

ROFL....sorry guys....maybe you didn't mean for me to
laugh....but thanks anyway.... I needed one today.

I totally agree with Runner.

But I have heard another wise man say "How big an 'ole
boy are you?"

ROFL......... carry on gentlemen.

Shadow

[Karel]

Gentlemen will be gentle men, come on dudes this is not necessary. I thought for a minute I was on the YHOO forum. Dave this is Spikes Thread and let him do his own thing. ...

Well, yes, but I think Dave supposed he was just being helpful. And when Spike says he doesn't follow EW theory exactly, what rules is he following? Or no rules? Is it just the picture on the first page of this thread ( 1 longer raise - 2 shorter drop - 3 longer raise - 4 shorter drop - 5 longer raise - a longer drop - b shorter raise - c longer drop )? Or is it a bit more specific, like (also according to the figure): a doesn't drop below 4, c does?

And the EW theory took a lot of research, whatever its value. If this isn't EW, why is it supposed to work? Is it a "good enough" approximation? Is it to establish the validity of Spike's approach? Or is it just to cheer at each success scored this way? All may be valid reasons for this thread, and there may be others, but it would be nice to establish what is what, so the experts can avoid messing up each other's shoeshine.

And I think Dave's comment ("that is not a b") still is interesting, not along the lines of "I know my theory better than you", but to see what this means for the bottom line, i.e. $$$.

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

Well, yes, but I think Dave supposed he was just being helpful. And when Spike says he doesn't follow EW theory exactly, what rules is he following? Or no rules? Is it just the picture on the first page of this thread ( 1 longer raise - 2 shorter drop - 3 longer raise - 4 shorter drop - 5 longer raise - a longer drop - b shorter raise - c longer drop )? Or is it a bit more specific, like (also according to the figure): a doesn't drop below 4, c does?

And the EW theory took a lot of research, whatever its value. If this isn't EW, why is it supposed to work? Is it a "good enough" approximation? Is it to establish the validity of Spike's approach? Or is it just to cheer at each success scored this way? All may be valid reasons for this thread, and there may be others, but it would be nice to establish what is what, so the experts can avoid messing up each other's shoeshine.

And I think Dave's comment ("that is not a b") still is interesting, not along the lines of "I know my theory better than you", but to see what this means for the bottom line, i.e. $$$.

Regards,

Karel

Karel,
Decently put Karel but not so much in defense of Spike's take on the EW theory but more so on the way he has set up his take on what he's been putting out here in his posts. He's always stated that he stretches the theory to a point, not where it is completely off base an out of line, but to where it is very close to what the theory spells out. Sometimes each of us in their take on any analysis sees it a specific way an others may or may not agree. The bottom line is that no one here is saying to buy on their recommendations or analysis but to point out a setup that may or may not follow thru. It's been working for Spike an alot of us for quite some time now and like ascending triangles, symetrical triangles, rising wedges, or any number of various chart formations it's all meant as that persons take on it. How we interact when we disagree is another thing. We're all strong personalities here and all apparently have strong beliefs in how we look at our analysis. Perhaps we have to look at how we disagree and how we state our disagreements to further a more positive dialogue. My own opinion is that on the large part Spike EW analysis has brought alot of people here on this forum to where they have learned some of the basics of EW theory and can now understand some of how it works and what is going on in trying to use it for themselves. To strengthen their own education on it then each individual should go out and either pick up a book on it or perhaps take a free online seminar on it. I have posted a number of times on a site where anyone can get a free education on the basics and some advanced work on EW. It is up to the individual to teach themselves more if they want it to be able to know the differences in an analysis. But anyway it's all good and lets keep the dialogue flowing in a positive manner.

[Runner]

This is now in day 3 from trigger line off daily chart

[spikefader]

ALKS in the 'c' today. And intraday right now it's right near that gap support of 23.48. Long here, 23.50 with stop under lod is 3% risk. Not bad.

[Karel]

Poll closed

Hi all, I just closed the poll. It would seem we already have such a thread.

Regards,

Karel

[spikefader]

ALKS in the 'c' today. And intraday right now it's right near that gap support of 23.48. Long here, 23.50 with stop under lod is 3% risk. Not bad.

ALKS chart. I note price may be searching for lod - potential double bottom setup with an expanding channel long today.
Remember: this 'c' very well may search for gap support 21.68, that's the next play if it takes out today low.

[Runner]

I'm leaving ALKS alone. My plan failed on it and will pass. I don't like the gap down against the trend. Good luck with it Spike!

[spikefader]

I once had a very wise man once tell me sumfin that has stuck with me. He said, “ learn how to step on a man’s shoes with out messing up his shoeshine”. If ya think about it for just a second it makes sense.

Thanks Runner. That's an excellent proverb.

I guess the intent of stepping on those shoes in the first place is key. Sometimes they do it accidentally as they are merely seeking to get closer to another. Sometimes it's without malice cuz the person wants to get in front of you as you're walkin' to danger, to save you and steer you right. And then there's the flipside to those; sometimes people just enjoy messin' up shoeshine cuz they enjoy the reaction they get. Other times it's to maliciously scuff an impressively shined up pair of shoes. Comes down to whether it's intentional or accidental I guess.

I think it's safe to say Stickler has scuffed my shoes.

His silence since his ridicule speaks volumes about his intent....and character for that matter.

Anyway, onward cuz it's all good - well, most of it anyway....

OK, where were we? Oh ya, simplicity, and profiting from it. I'm lookin' at BEL impulsing again....and off a 'c' area. I'll draw up a chart.

[spikefader]

BEL lovin' it.

[Runner]

Thanks Runner.

That's an excellent proverb.

I guess the intent of stepping on those shoes in the first place is key I guess. Sometimes they do it accidentally as they are merely seeking to get closer to another. Sometimes it's without malice cuz the person wants to get in front of you as you're walkin' to danger, to save you and steer you right. And then there's the flipside to those; sometimes people just enjoy messin' up shoeshine cuz they enjoy the reaction they get. Other times it's to maliciously scuff an impressively shined up pair of shoes. Comes down to whether it's intentional or accidental I guess.

I think it's safe to say Stickler has scuffed my shoes.

His silence since his ridicule speaks volumes about his intent....and character for that matter.

Anyway, onward cuz it's all good - well, most of it anyway....

OK, where were we? Oh ya, simplicity, and profiting from it. I'm lookin' at BEL impulsing again....and off a 'c' area. I'll draw up a chart.

Spike, you’re a winner in my book. You keep-on- keeping on!!

[Karel]

Thanks Runner. That's an excellent proverb. [...]

Errm, spike, it is an excellent proverb, but the way I read it, you're supposed to apply it to yourself. If there is any applicability. In the third person it just doesn't work as well.

Regards,

Karel

[Lyehopper]

Errm, spike, it is an excellent proverb, but the way I read it, you're supposed to apply it to yourself. If there is any applicability. In the third person it just doesn't work as well.

Regards,

Karel

Once many years ago.... After an evening of heavy brandy consumption.... I stepped on my own shoes and ruined them.

Hey Spike! Maybe steckler is just.... drunk. That just might explain why he won't play our rough and tumble POTW huh?.... Notice how I entered his pick SILC anyhow.jejeje

[spikefader]

lol Lye, many years ago?? .... ya right! yuck yuck yuck.

Collateral damage during heavy nights......yup, I think we all got stories like that one. Mine involve the cops and ERs lol Doh! Memories of a sinner's life coming back to haunt me! lol

Well if he is drunk he sure types well. Only a seasoned alcoholic can manage that feat!!! ...... But if he were drunk, where's the bravado and Dutch Courage to enter into the competition??? hehe See that little dog run! lol

[spikefader]

MDR looks like the 'c' is in now. I'll look to buy the intraday pivot tomorrow I think...

MDR earlier chart http://www.mrmarketishuge.com/showpo...3&postcount=22
Long here 49.35. sub 2% risk.