DbPhoenix

For those who are interested but afraid to ask, see chart #12 in Chapter Two of Undeclared Secrets. Have a nice evening.

Thanks for the reply, and I understand. I was an EOD trader for quite a few years until the internet came along. Even then, daytrading wasn't cheap given the cost of the software and datafeeds (those who weren't there wouldn't believe how much it cost; remember when VCRs were nearly $2000?), so I didn't get into it until the late 90s. And, no, I wouldn't daytrade off a 15m bar either. As to the down day, who knows? Support, as you noted, is at 60 and resistance is at 80, with 70 being the midpoint. Since we closed near that midpoint, we just have to wait for the market to show its hand, or at least a couple of cards. Maybe you'll get lucky and it'll open near resistance.

I can speak only to the support/resistance business, and that, to a large extent, is why I did three weeks of RT commentaries in my Blog along with charts, to show where and why I located S&R at given zones and levels. Most people got it. Some didn't. But there's nothing super-sophisticated about it. It's an outgrowth of auction market theory, or MP if you're into that. If not, consider it as a variation on the Darvas Box. As for "formalizing the trading method", that's certainly possible, but it is somewhat antithetical to Wyckoff's approach, and perhaps even to pre-TradeGuider VSA. This is not to say that Wyckoff just went with his feelings. He incorporated wave charts, vertical charts, P&F charts, position sheets, trend lines, etc, etc, etc in an effort to enable people to use his methods even if they didn't understand the basis for the methods (as distinct from Dunnigan, who went to great lengths to tie his method to his thought process every step of the way; in order to use his method profitably, one would have to understand what he was thinking and why). Then, of course, there are those who can apply what they've read to produce the most gorgeous analyses you've ever seen. But they can't trade them. Given the state of technology, I see no reason why one can't buy a "virtual tutor", who will guide him through dynamic charts (not just bar by bar scrolling charts), with Q&A and instant correction and frequent reviews. Though trading moving average crossovers is a lot easier.

Yes, I did, and it's very funny. As for controlling threads, this most often arises out of a lack of confidence in whatever the individual is doing. Not referring to any thread or forum or website in particular, of course. But I hope James takes the time to respond. Although if he's not a daytrader, I can understand why he might not take the long. Funny thing is, I couldn't care less whether people use candles or bars or divining rods. It's all about the same thing: price action. The difficulties arise when the trader begins to think of these things as indicators (if he ever thought of them as anything else) and forgets what it is that they are indicating. It seems James understands this. At least that's what I got from his post. And why no NQ? You guys wouldn't be prejudiced, would you?

First, I'm not "chastizing" you for your trading. I'm only pointing out that the correct entry was at "F". This is considerably earlier than your entry, which you felt was "too early". Second, I don't recall ever using the term "bearish triangle". Perhaps you could provide a link to the post. Or you may be referring to your own use of the term. As for Wyckoff counseling against patterns, he incorporated hinges and springboards as an important part of his analysis. A hinge is a triangle only if you don't understand what a hinge is. Second, the "spring" does not come from Wyckoff. It comes from SMI. Third, if the thread is not to tolerate mention of Wyckoff, either, then you are essentially barring that which VSA is based on. Fourth, as I mentioned to zdo, given that I was invited to participate in the Best of Wyckoff conference this fall along with Pruden, Raschke, Weis, and Fullett, someone is of the opinion that I have at least a feeble grasp of the subject. If James wants to make you a moderator and give you the authority to determine what is or is not posted on this thread, that's his prerogative. Otherwise, I suggest that you put me on Ignore.

Actually, you got in quite late. Long entry at double bottom off support and no supply at 11:00. Perhaps someone can put this in official VSA terms. Otherwise, it's pure Wyckoff.

Watch that "smaller timeframe" talk. Question: given your take on the nature of the activity at support, did you go long at 11:00?

I understand that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Many people don't. But then many people do. And more are beginning to. But if you've read everything I've written, including the real-time commentaries, and you've read Graifer and Wyckoff and Neill and Dunnigan and Magee and you still don't understand what I'm referring to regarding price action, then clearly there is a difference in perceptual and conceptual constructs between those who understand this and those who don't, and that difference cannot be reconciled with yet more explanation, at least by me. The only way I know of to understand price action is to sit in front of a computer screen and study price action. Until recently, not everyone could do that, which may help to explain why even EOD traders had so much trouble making a go of it. But with the advent of replay, anyone who is willing to put in the time can "trade price" in "real time", watching price move, watching volume move in tandem, watching how they interact. Yes, this takes a lot of time and it is a lot of work, and very few people are willing to do it. But that's not my problem. I used to think that if only the original Wyckoff course were made available at a reasonable price, without having to go through all of the SMI modifications, that the nature of price action would suddenly become clear. But I've learned since that it wouldn't make any difference at all. Talking about this and reading about this will take one only so far (which is the chief reason why I declined to participate in the Best of Wyckoff conference being held this fall), and how far is demonstrated by what reads on message boards by those who've only talked about it and read about it. If one truly wants to understand it, he simply must make the commitment and put in the screen time. None of this is intended to insult you or anyone else. And perhaps there is someone out there who is more gifted than I who can explain price action better than I. If so, I wish he'd step up to the plate. Absent that, I'm unable to help you further.

My initial post was directed toward CW. It was not intended to fluff anyone, most of all Eiger. And based on the content of both parts of the thread, it was not off-topic. However, to pursue this subject on this thread would very likely become off-topic rather quickly. Therefore, I'll respond to your question on your volume thread.

Clearly. You may want to begin by reviewing your take on the market outlook on 3/27, which incorporated no understanding of price action and was consequently somewhat off the mark, then review habi's and dandxg's posts, which accurately assessed what was happening within the context of price action and provided forecasts which were considerably closer to the mark, perhaps because they are actively striving to understand the nature of price action and thus enliven their understanding of VSA and any other approach that shares a similar basis. You can, of course, sing lalala as much as you like. But doing so will not deepen your understanding of VSA nor Wyckoff. BTW, love the hindsight analysis.

Uh, Eiger, you may want to look over the initial posts to the original VSA thread, which incorporates candles and MP. Is none of that now, according to you, appropriate? Are 5m bars the only bars that are allowed? As to "my version" of price action, (a) I was addressing CW and some of his remarks re candles and (b) if you believe that VSA has nothing to do with price action, then I suggest that you review the material. Perhaps both parts of this thread should be renamed "TradeGuider" so that everybody knows what the "thrust" is.

So there is to be no discussion of price action, candlesticks, or support/resistance? Perhaps some clarification is in order.

Thank you, but, no, it isn't, not technically. Clearly you've put a great deal of thought into this and you've come up with a rather elaborate scheme to try to trade these candles profitably. But you're "reading" the candle, not the price action, and therefore using the candles as indicators, divorced to a large extent from the price action itself. Candles, whether WRBs or not, are entirely a function of the interval chosen to display them. The "WRB", in other words, disappears when the price action is displayed in another interval. The price action is the same; the only thing that's changed is the means by which it is displayed. WRBs are simply a graphic display of distance by time. One can see this in any display, even dots. Granted that "WRB" is convenient shorthand for the type of movement it displays, just as "doji" is a far more convenient way of describing the price action within a certain span of time than "that bar where the open and the close are the same". But either way, bar or candle, is not the thing. It's nothing more than a means of displaying the thing. If one finds it necessary to develop elaborate schemes for entry and exit and stop placement and so forth, it's likely that he's focusing on the representation and not the thing -- price action -- that's being represented, and the lists of rules grow ever longer.

RULE#7: Regard patience as a central pillar of your game and strategy... Don't assign it a secondary or lesser role. Although the cheetah is the fastest animal in the world and can catch any animal on the plains, it will wait until it is absolutely sure it can catch its prey. It may hide in the bush for a week waiting for just the right moment. It will wait for a baby antelope, and not just any baby antelope, but preferably one that is also sick or lame. Only then, when there is no chance it can lose its prey, does it attack. That, to me, is the epitome of professional trading. (Mark Weinstein)

Wouldn't it be easier just to read the price action?

If a trader hasn't defined and tested his setups, he has no idea how many losing trades to expect. So the answer to your original question could just as easily be "both".

If a trader has 14 losing trades in a row and hasn't the least idea why, I suggest he's looking at something other than the win-lose cycle.

This is in keeping with what Bo Yoder calls the "win-lose" cycle. I paraphrase his take in one of the stages in the "Stages of a Trader" pdf posted to my Blog: After a while (sometimes a good long while), you notice a particular phenomenon which pops up regularly and seems to "work" pretty well. You focus on this pattern. You begin to find more and more instances of it and all of them work! It’s all true! It Works! Your confidence in the pattern grows and you decide to take it the very next time it appears. You take it, and almost immediately your stop is hit, and you're underwater for the total amount of your stoploss. So you back off and study this pattern further. You go back to the books, back to your notes. And the very next time it appears, it works. And again. And yet again. So you decide to try again. And you take the full hit on your stoploss. Practically everyone goes through this, but few understand that this is all part of the win-lose cycle. They do not yet understand that loss is an inevitable part of any system/strategy/method/whathaveyou, that is, there is no such thing as a 100% win approach. When they gauge the success of a particular pattern or setup, they get caught up in the win cycle. They don't wait for the "lose" cycle to see how long it lasts or what the win/lose pattern is. Instead, they keep touching the pot and getting burned, never understanding that it's not the pot (pattern/setup) that's the problem, but a failure on their part to understand that it's the heat from the stove (the market) that they're paying no attention to whatsoever. So instead of trying to understand the nature of thermal transfer (the market), they avoid the pot (the pattern), moving on to another pattern/setup without bothering to find out whether or not the stove is on.

RULE#6: To win at poker you must embrace the idea of breaking even... A distaste for breaking even can lead us into the valley of pressing and overplaying and other wrongful activity. We have to have a positive mindset for the long run. A one-sided expectation for a short performance interval is just going to chew us up. Breaking even or a loss is just one of the natural outcomes in a statistical run. This is the way our trading plan is supposed to work given the nature of the game... The plan is not broken. The reason we have a plan in place is to help us focus on executing sound decisions under fire. Do not make it difficult by trying to outsmart your own plan. Pressing at the last hour to meet some number in our head is just out of place. When you have a glass of muddy water, you can't make it clear by stirring it. You can't make the mind clear by forcing it one way or the other. Don't force your expectations on your trading; let the Law of Large Numbers do its work in peace. (William)

On the ES, 1370 is the primary S/R level.

Judging by your posts here and elsewhere, you appear to be fairly new, and much of what you want to know may become clear as you become more experienced (I'd like to say "will" become clear, but that is often not the case). Issues of nearby rewards and tight stops and trailing stops and risk:reward ratios and where do I enter/exit and how I do I distinguish up from down are among the most common puzzlements that beset beginners and are all a consequence of their not knowing just what it is that they're looking at. Once you understand what you're looking at and become familiar with it, you should be able to determine the best entry for your risk tolerance, and you will have defined what constitutes a reversal signal (I say "should" because many people never do). Once that's accomplished, it's simply (but not necessarily easily) a matter of entering when you're supposed to and staying in until you get your reversal signal. At that point, all the issues regarding stops and r:r and cutting profits short and so forth will for the most part evaporate.

Unless you define and test whatever it is that interests you as a setup, then you cannot expect to do any better over the long run than a coin toss. Posting that you were "right" four days ago about a return to this level doesn't do you much good if you have no setup to take advantage of it.

However, you didn't mention any of this at or before or after the open. Since you could not have known in advance that this was going to be a trend day, that's not a factor. The point of a RT thread is to discuss what you're doing and plan to do in RT. To go back and say that the probabilities were for a "continuation higher", particularly when you never went long, doesn't count. Yesterday doesn't count either. If you're unable to act in RT, that's fine. But that's what you need to work on. You can't trade hindsight.

I don't recall you mentioning any of this earlier. You appeared to be looking for shorting opportunities all day.

True. There aren't all that many possibilities. Every day? All the time? Under all circumstances? So you haven't seen any shorting opportunities today after all?