The Drummond Geometry Forum

I bought the first module of the course from you last week. As we may be communicating a bit over the next little while I would like to introduce myself prior to asking some questions (the true motive behind the e-mail). I am a physician who has been playing around with the markets for years - unsuccessfully, until the last two years. In that time I have switched over to trading a portfolio of systems. Most of them are black box systems, one of them is my own. I use my own money management algorithm which utilizes Monte Carlo simulations. The black box systems are chosen after an analysis of trade data using Monte Carlos simulation, so as to optimize risk/reward ratios. Since switching to this method fifteen months ago I have consistently made money - 26% last year and 11% this year-to-date. In the past three months I have been daytrading the S&P using a combination of Fibonacci, my own trend analysis and a double stochastic oscillator. Again, this method has been successful. Nonetheless, I am something of a student and am always interested in new perceptions. Hence, you are stuck with a new student. The course is excellent and it is a much larger commitment than I had expected. That's fine with me.

B.S.

===I predict that the better understanding of market structure that comes with this course will help you no matter what other methodologies you employ...

I have gone through Lesson 2 and I have a few questions:
1. On Screen 29 I believe it is worded incorrectly. This screen analogizes the Closed 5/9 to the Closed 5/1. The Closed 5/1 is used when the C[2] is outside the range of Bar[1]; i.e. either C[2]<L[1] or C[2]>H[1]. This is very different from Screen 29 which says that the context for the Closed 5/9 is C[1]>C[2]. I believe that the former was intended, not the latter. Am I correct in this assumption?

B.S.

===analogous in the sense that we "close the gap" between the high/low of one bar and the close of the prior bar...

2. Do Closed 5/9s have extensions?

==Yes.

3. I believe there is a mistake on Screen 36. On the top chart the resulting point on the current or last bar is <C[1] and should be considered support; i.e. 6/1 up. However, on the bottom chart the resulting point is again <C[1]. In this situation you are calling it 6/5 down and showing it as resistance. Isn't this inconsistent with your definition?

B.S.

====The second paragraph of text does not match the illustration is a poor placement and should be on the next page...