DbPhoenix

Thank you, RI. If I understand you, then, specialists et al implement the maneuvers that are described by Williams and Ney. But Williams as quoted by Nvesta appears to be saying that they do not exert that level of control. While one may not call this a paradox, it does seem to qualify as an inconsistency.

Thank you, Nvesta. One of the reasons why it's so difficult to come up with a coherent and internally consistent strategy that implements what is addressed in VSA is that there are so many iterations of VSA, from the original all the way to TG. For example, the emphasis on the location of the "close" of a bar even when there is no universally agreed-upon bar interval presents certain difficulties that should be obvious. This is why I'm less interested in what the book "says" and much more interested in what is being "heard" by those who are reading/studying it. If, for example, ten people are studying it and they each have a different understanding of how it all works than everyone else among the ten, then I should think that they, at least, would be interested in ironing out these differences. Perhaps then their understanding of what is happening in real time (since this is when trades are placed) would be enhanced.

Again, I'm not so much interested in what Williams thinks as in what you think. There is a paradox here, and I'm interested in how you resolved it. Sorry if you interpret this as an attack. If you'd rather not answer, I won't ask again. Perhaps someone else, though, will offer an explanation.

But is this not inconsistent with Sledge's interpretation that syndicate groups and "big" players are the herd?

I'm glad that you're happy with your results. However, I continue to be interested in the logic of your position, i.e., the position of an ordinary, part-time, retail trader as opposed to the author of the book. For example, if professional money is the herd, and the objective of VSA is to follow the activities of the professional money, does it not follow that by following the activities of the professional money one is following the activities of the herd? On the other hand, if "professional money" is defined as specialists, is one to assume that the majority of specialists are all doing the same thing in the same way at the same time? Or is it possible that there's some other more reasonable explanation of which specialists and market-makers play only a small role, or at least no larger than anyone else?

As for the trendline, I was wondering where Point A came from, which is why I asked for a broader context. If you're referring to an ordinary GBP/USD chart, your trendline should be up, not down. But perhaps you're referring to something else. As for MTM, I've read that several times as well as US. And I'm not attacking you or Tom Williams. I'm merely curious about how the logic of this works for someone who is not Tom Williams. Since you are such a strong advocate of this view, it is only reasonable that one would look to you to trace this logic. If it all makes sense, then asking how it makes sense for an ordinary retail trader should not be viewed as an unreasonable request.

I asked earlier for further information on where the trendline you drew on your GBP chart came from, but you must have overlooked it. Even so, are you suggesting that every swing point in the chart going back, oh, say, to last November is the result of "market maker" manipulation?

For myself, I look for evidence that the trading range we've been in since mid-January won't continue, since that would be the norm, i.e., yet another round-trip back to support. That is, after all, the way these things go. If prices do break out to the upside, fine. But what puzzles me is why those who purport to believe in selling strength suddenly now are counseling to buy it.

It's hardly off-topic. In fact, it appears to have become a central axiom of VSA. Which, I suspect, is a chief reason why so many people have so much trouble "interpreting" their charts.

Which illustrates the difference between viewing price movement as a series of buying and selling waves v a series of "bars". But that's what happens when one tries to make mechanical what is unavoidably non-mechanical, i.e., Wyckoff.

Now, James..... :o

RULE#10: Begin by playing tight, but don't forget to stay tight... The important thing is not who possesses the control and discipline at the start of the game, but who possesses it at the middle, the end, and all points throughout. It is easy to have faith in yourself and have discipline when you're a winner, when you're number one. What you've got to have is faith and discipline when you're not yet a winner. (Vincent Lombardi) Stick to a plan despite what happened before and what will happen after. It is less about fighting and more about surrendering. (William)

You may be interested in the context here. The first chart is Wyckoff's, from Dec '30 thru March '31 ("s" signifies Saturday). The second shows the entire year '30, up to and including Dec to show where price was coming from prior to the left edge of W's chart. . .

"Volume profile" is a good term, though I don't think I mean the same thing he does. In any case, today it worked out nicely: a pop up above the "extreme" for a few points, then Wham! back down toward the midpoint, through, then all the way down to within a couple of points of the midpoint of the previous range (at least on the NQ; the ES hit it exactly). Scalping just does not appeal to me at all.

Of course. Professional support is what puts the brakes on the decline and eventually modifies the slope into what may become an accumulative base. This is why one refers to "climactic action" or "potential climax" rather than a "climax". There may be several "climaxes" on the way to a rest, like tapping the brake when one is driving downhill. Professional support can be detected by the volume. Incidentally, please don't overlook my previous post.

Regarding the chart posted to #837, could you or anyone show where that trendline comes from?

I don't know if these will be of any interest to anyone, but I don't know where else to put them, and it does pay to look at the sectors in addition to the indexes. I'm leaving these as thumbnails since there are so many. I hope they're self-explanatory. If not, please ask.

While I hesitate to return to this subject, there is ongoing confusion over predicting v RT trading v hindsight analysis, and it seems that commentary is now being thrown into the mix. So let's address the salient points. First, you did not state in your post 357 that the Naz was in a "Spring" position. You said that Friday's (3/7) action was a spring, followed by qualifications regarding how it could go up or down and so forth. And, yes, I posted a chart of the hinge. Dandxg, heretoday, and rsi also expressed caution. And several days later we made a new low. This is not to say that you were "wrong", but neither were you "right". You provided commentary which covered all the bases. But this is neither forecasting nor RT trading. It is what it is. As for post 517 (in its entirety: "The odds may be favoring a Spring on the daily ES & NQ charts"), they certainly might have been. Or not. As it turned out, they did, largely because of the evidence of exhausted selling and strength in demand that was shown on the 14th and 17th that was not in evidence on the 7th and 10th (I'm sure you covered this somewhere). However, the "Wyckoff principles" expressed in post 529 have nothing to do with creeks and jumping and so forth. The Wyckoff principle that applies is that what you're calling the "spring" is the test/retest, and that's the entry, i.e., what Wyckoff does call the "springboard" (the posts made on the 17th are informative to those who are interested, and I appreciate your thanking me for the 1m chart I posted of that morning's activity). Again, this continuing back-and-forth has nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong. It's about RT trading v hindsight analysis. And the only question that anyone trying to trade this approach should concern himself with is whether or not he's able to translate what he's learning into consistently profitable RT trading. If he isn't, then there is something missing in his understanding of the principles involved or, perhaps, the principles are incomplete. The trader needs to ask himself, for example, if he picked up on the lack of enthusiasm among sellers and the increased enthusiasm among buyers on the 14th, 17th, and, I hope, the 18th. And if the trader finds himself making consistently poor entries and exits, then he needs to address the disconnect between what he thinks he's learning and what he's actually doing in RT.

Of course, one must be careful not to focus so much on the form that he overlooks the substance: The first standard deviation correlates to the value area. This is a high volume area. It shows price acceptance confirmed by use: a fair price area. The third standard deviation correlates to a price excess. This is a low volume area. It shows price rejection: an unfair price area. These low volume price areas are key reference points because they can contain the range. When the market reaches these potential parameters, it can only do one of two things: trade through or reverse direction.

Except you can't even be sure you're looking at the right picture, because you framed it yourself. It might hold a great insight, or it might hold nothing at all. Preconceived notions might rule out what you're trying to find. So do you stare harder at the picture if you're not getting the kool-aid feeling, or do you question your frame? A scientist comes across an unexplained phenomenon that challenges his current beliefs. Does he try to explain away the phenomenon using known theorems, or does he branch out in a new direction and willingly threaten his body of assumptions? In most cases the accepted assumptions go unchallenged and the answer is assumed to be within their folds, until and unless the phenomenon becomes too unsettling or too painful to ignore. Then the stage is set for creative destruction and paradigm shift, a new way of thinking that radically alters or even replaces what came before it. Not all advances in knowledge build on the prior structure. Some tear it down completely. A lot of traders probably live in fear of seeing their sand castles demolished. (darkhorse)

Actually, years ago when I was working with Teresa Lo, she recommended that beginners with very little money start with options on whatever underlying they were interested in. Granted this was during The Madness, and options occupy their own little niche and require their own learning curve, but it's something to think about. As for the PDT, I hope that that will eventually be rescinded. As far as I've seen ever since it was imposed, beginners are just as naive, they ask the same questions, make the same mistakes, lose just as much just as often. The only appreciable difference is that they've been forced into other markets which are even worse, like goo through a pastry tube. In any case, one could borrow whatever's required to open a futures account, then withdraw nearly all of it. Depends on how badly one wants to learn how to trade futures.

Only if you make so many round trades a week. And while I may be mistaken, so far he's said nothing about daytrading. In any case, there's no PDT regarding simtrading. And if he becomes confident in what he's doing, he may decide to explore the joys of holding overnight.

Actually, the number one reason why traders fail, new or otherwise, is that they don't know what they're doing. If he wants to trade FX, it won't matter whether the cost is $10 or $1 or ten cents. Knowing what he's trading and how to trade it is paramount. If he wants to trade index futures, on the other hand, a cheap way to do it is to analyze and take signals from the emini and enter the trade on the ETF, whether DIA or SPY or QQQQ.

As I said, you'll have to ask an MP person. Sorry.

If they're not, then the distribution won't be symmetrical. Your question was based on a symmetrical distribution, a bell curve. As to letting the trade run, if one receives no reversal signal at the extremes, then he lets it run. No reason to exit for no other reason than arriving at a number.