|
South Central Iowa | The corn chart I posted above shows our most recent minor pivot. It is the 3rd chart. It points out a catch by a cross of two SRL's. This created a possible pivot and I then placed a fork there as well.
Sometimes the resistance line holds and makes a pivot. Sometimes a ML is touched and the fork forms a pivot and creates a minor fork.
But most of the time, when price is moving hard in a direction, a 1/3 speed is broken and there is nowhere left for a reposition. When this occurs, the process of finding a pivot is a combination of the other SRL and trial and error placement of the new SRL. Just as it is with finding the location of the C; trial and error.
No one can repetitively pick bottoms. Placing the C or the anchor of an SRL is a similar process. When price stops moving in the direction it is going and begins to reverse, we place our point on that prior low. If the price continually acts in concert with the placement of our tool, our confidence that we placed our point on the pivot grows. But if it breaks the 1/3 line, or LML, or whatever, then we wait to place on the next low/high and recovery, until price moves no further in that direction and reverses.
Eventually the pivot point is found and both tools become more useful at that point. I just don't understand the insistence on 80% for the fork. That percentage certainly requires ignoring all the exploratory forms created while trying to find the anchor for the C. Saying it is 80% doesn't make it a better tool. The price interacts well with the tool, that is what makes it valid and useful. The SRL's along with other tools don't make a claim to any probability and they still are useful as well. | |
|
I don't know....
