Ricks Inn

Hi, Sebastian - Will video analysis like this be a part of the VSA Club? How's that coming along? Best, Rick

One small point, but important in Tom Williams' VSA, is that the OPEN value on any bar is not utilized (of course the OPEN defines one end of the body - if any - of a candle). Even the latest TradeGuider software rev. soft-pedals the alphanumeric display of the OPEN value.

I'm guessing it's just that during a live webinar there's no other type of trade they CAN show from beginning to end. Also, it supports the contention that VSA principles apply to "all markets in all timeframes". Seems like it's true -- from this sample of one, at least. I confess that I didn't see much that was tradable at all, so their coming out of this (admittedly demo-type) situation in the black was better than I would have done!

Just as an FYI, TradeGuider had a webinar this afternoon in which they turned all VSA indictors completely off (as well as the trend indictors for most of the time) while they traded the E-mini post-FOMC. Market was mostly ranging this afternoon, so both Gavin's live two-contract trades yielded small amounts (~$50 on one long and $87.50 on a short trade), though they were both profitable. But the principles of VSA seemed to me to work pretty well, at least to the extent that Tom and Sebastian understand them, and were explaining as they went along. I may be wrong, but I think they are planning a similar event later this month showing how volume-based analysis applies to FOREX, too.

Yeah, my three Ney books reside in the high-mildew section of my library (bought through the used book Amazon partners). <SmileySneezing emoticon> The Luciano story is a hoot (even if apocryphal, but I THINK true). Ney also is supposedly one of two celebrities (along with Corvair-era Ralph Nader) who was dis-invited as a guest from Johnny Carson's "Tonight" show, since they were supposedly just too dang incendiary. Thx, Eiger.

Thanks for that, Db. Maybe the best way to think about this issue is as a continuum -- from interest-to-influence-to-manipulation-to-control. The "smart money" isn't so smart that it always wins! They battle each other (though we retail traders are much softer touches) and win some / lose some. It's not a light switch labelled "Market Control ON/OFF", and while all syndicates attempt manipulation, none (individually or collectively) have the power to fully control. IMO, at least...

Tom Williams is, of course, not the only one who's written about market manipulation as fact. Though no longer in print, all three of Richard Ney's books books document this (the first two in great detail). Tom has also pointed out that "smart money" is not monolithic, does compete among themselves, and does not consist of everyone who works in the financial sector as a career. Bank investors, retirement fund managers, retail brokers, individual financial planners at places such as HSBC and UBS --- all control very large funds, but almost invariably part of the "herd" (I've been a customer of these in years past, and my HSBC account manager disputed manipulation being a significant factor.) So there is a distinction here. Not till you get to the so-called syndicate, specialist, or market-maker level do you find the folks who have 1) the funding, and 2) the inside knowledge (e.g. where stops are placed, pending large block orders being distributed) which are needed to implement the maneuvers Tom and Richard -- and others -- speak about. I don't THINK this is a paradox; maybe unseemly, borderline illegal, winked at by the revolving door regulators --- but extant none the less. Check this for a rare main-stream-media reference to this activity: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article3587090.ece (The first sentence in particular -- this usually doesn't get out, and Tom Williams has spoken of having witnessed this very behaviour within the syndicate he worked for in the 1960s.)

Sebastian - May I inquire about the tool you were using as the basis of the chart posted in #725? It looks familiar, but not exactly like anything I've seen previously...

CW - I'm not much of a candle guy, but chart 2 has all them thar "higher-low after higher-lows" that Sebastian talks about as well. Yes it's all rear-view mirror stuff -- that doesn't make it wrong. Maybe better called "necessary but not sufficient".