Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.
DbPhoenix
-
Content Count
3789 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by DbPhoenix
-
No, just busy And of course there is the occasional brain fart. Db
-
See this post. Db ....
-
Yes, you are correct and I've made the change from "long" to "short". Thanks for pestering me about it. Lots going on yesterday. Db
-
-
Again, all your questions can be answered through testing. I realize your supervisor wants you to make as many trades as possible so that you can see "what works", but this is some of the dumbest advice I've ever encountered. You need to test all these hypotheses of yours and develop a plan based on the results. If you don't, you will fail. Db
-
As to what W would do, you'll find this in the Course. Check the table of contents. As to what is best for the trader, this again is one of the objectives of testing. If you find through testing that you can succeed with a weak stock and sector and a strong market, then go for it. Db
-
Don't feel clumsy. You may have noted that none of the pundits called this yesterday, though one did call attention to it after the close. If you had been following the chatter instead of the price, you probably wouldn't have entered at all. Or at least entered in the right direction. Db
-
This is one of the objectives of testing, to determine what is least favorable, most favorable, or neutral. Or there may be no difference, leaving it up to trader's choice. But the BO is the lowest price risk, not the highest. It is instead the highest information risk. Db
-
They're acceptable, but you have so many of them that each has little practical value. Draw enough lines and price is bound to hit one of them. Each of these lines indicates potential support. However, support is not a line. Support is that level where buyers are most likely to step in and reverse the demand/supply balance. Buyers aren't thinking about lines; they're thinking about trades. So look for that level first where the most trading activity has taken place in the past. On your chart, that would be around 2777 to 2771. At each preceding level, there are fewer and fewer trades, therefore less and less potential support. For example, you will have noticed the parabolic rise on the 6th. At any given price point there are fewer trades than there would have been on a much slower rise, particularly if price had spent a lot of time in RETs and congestions. Therefore, when price rolled over and returned to that zone, there was little to stop it. And here we are. If you have it, you can plot Volume At Price or Volume By Price to help you. But it's not that difficult to just eyeball it and note in which zone price has spent the most time. Db
-
The long refers to the long taken at the test of S, i.e., "if you were long here". Taking a long at R would be, well, not good. Db
-
No, the drill is to go long off a successful test of S. This doesn't go far, but it goes far enough. One can then go short when the move runs out of steam. A short at S would be stopped out almost immediately. Db
-
When it comes to the markets, a lot of it is like those pictures you're supposed to stare at fixedly in order to see something else within it. You either reach the Oh Yeah or you don't. And if you don't, it's most likely because you're not what Douglas terms "available". Fortunately, in the markets, one can avoid grappling with reality for only so long, i.e., until he goes broke. Though quite a few people apparently refund themselves and begin again. At some point, one begins to see why price moves the way it does. I can't say how many charts one has to look at (or how many tapes he has to follow) before this underlying structure shows itself, but I do know that the longer one focuses on interpretations of it, or commentaries on it, or reflections of it (as in a mirror), or third-party analyses of it, the longer it will take for him to see it, if he ever does. As for the frame, that too disappears, and the snapshot becomes a stream-of-consciousness documentary. Which is why people who try to make volume bars into indicators aren't going to be happy with the results. Db
-
Ah, there we are: 2786 (14m late). Db
-
Is 2787 okay? How hard is this? Db
-
The inset in the lower-left of this chart is a copy of the chart I posted to the TIF thread before the open. This all plays out just as one might expect. Price tests the midpoint of the hinge at 22, no buyers can be found, so price drops all the way through both premkt TRs to 13 (there is no particular S here; in fact, one can anticipate price falling all the way back to 2786). It finds S there, then rallies to make a LH. When it then makes a subsequent HL, this is an indication that a TR is in the offing, and that is what price does for the next 18m (note, however, that one could make a number of both long and short trades if he were to trade without bias and he'd lose little or nothing; in fact, he might pick up a point or two). Price then tests the OL. If a short is in place, that can be easily exited and a long taken there or at the first RET. Price then tests the earlier LH (the dashed blue line represents both the top of the boxes TR in the insert and the bottom of the immediately following TR). A short here would be exited at 07, which nicely coincides with 1100 EST. Thus the range on the NQ was 17pts. The range on the ES was 5. Db
-
I ran across an old post of mine from another forum and thought it would be useful here. Db Why do people get excited about volume spikes? Greed or fear. Amateur traders see volume spiking and think Oh God I'm Missing Something, and they try to jump on -- or out of -- a speeding train. Sometimes that volume can propel traders to a new level. Sometimes, at least in an upmove, it's pure distribution, and when new buyers find they have no one to sell to, price can plummet just as fast as it rose. Part of the problem with regard to discussing price and volume is that not everybody is talking about the same thing. And some people think that definitions don't matter. But they do. And if one is going to think clearly about what's happening in front of him, he needs also to be clear about the language he uses to describe it, even if that language is purely internal. Some people will say, for example, that they don't use volume, that volume is not important, even that volume is useless. But without volume, that is, trading activity, there would be no transactions and hence no price movement. That in itself makes volume important. What is often meant by statements like these is volume as an indicator, particularly a color-coded indicator, and those who feel that this sort of volume is pretty useless may have a point. There is also the matter of volume as trading activity (which is how Wyckoff looked at it) and volume as "intent", which is essentially what bid and ask "volume" are about. But the trader who trades according to what people intend to do may not make the same decisions as one who trades according to the transactions that people are actually making. I may intend to sell the strawberries in my refrigerator for $100 a pint, but nobody's going to give a damn unless somebody actually meets my price and we conclude a transaction. That then becomes the price. But is it the correct value? And mixing price with value is another area where traders tend to trip themselves up. Going back to your first post, a trader may have shares that he thinks are worth $10. But he can't find a buyer who thinks they're worth more than $5. The seller's price is $10 because that's where he's placed their value. The buyer's price is $5 because he's placed their value at that level. But that doesn't make either $5 or $10 the "price". The price is determined through negotiation until there is an agreed-upon amount, maybe $7.50. And if the two parties conclude their negotiation, the transaction takes place and $7.50 becomes the price, even if only for a few seconds. Therefore, if intent matters to you and you believe that bid and ask "volume" truly reflect intent, then the bid and ask volume may be useful to you. But none of this has anything to do with the volume that is trading activity which in turn is the result of actual transactions which in turn result in prices that are printed on the "tape". If there is no transaction, there is no volume, and everybody just stands around holding hands. Once a transaction takes place, then you've got something concrete, a benchmark to go by, and some clue as to the action you should take.
-
Twenty years. Your first post today was a combination of a TBP question and a journal entry. Try to keep them separate for the benefit of those who are trying to follow along. Incidentally, this morning's action in the NQ is an excellent illustration of your quandary. Db
-
Dozens have been posted, mine and others. If you're not yet ready to put together a trading plan, read them again along with the threads and the course. I don't need to learn how to do this; you do. Db
-
What's yours? .......
-
-
Locating S&R will be key and should always be kept in mind. You'll find it difficult to distinguish between a RET and a REV in RT without them. This is the flaw in Ross and Dunnigan. Not that they'll deliver 100%, but they'll eliminate a lot of guesswork. Db
-
No, doesn't open up. Don't know why. Db
-
Well shucks, Gringo, that's very nice of you to say, though in all fairness I did leave for a couple of years. But there was and is no other Wyckoff forum, and this one was not being maintained, and orcs were about. And to let it all go after all that work made no sense. And as far as the brickbats, I came to realize that few of the people who post to these boards actually trade, and even fewer, if any, make a living at it. So who really cares what they have to say? The point is to maintain this place as a resource. What is it to me after all whether or not anybody actually gets to the planning stage? I read a study several years ago about the 95% business that said that it wasn't exactly true, that the successes and failures followed a more or less normal distribution: that about half outright failed, most of the rest piddled along, and the rest -- about 3% -- actually made a living at it. That seemed about right, though it might be even less. Is it worth maintaining this for those 1-3%? Why not? It doesn't take that much time anymore. In any case, yes, there is a conceptual and perceptual shift, but it doesn't always occur. Those are the breaks. But I'm glad that you appear to be parting that veil. As to your questions, the buying waves had been so much stronger than the selling waves for the previous four hours that a short never really occurred to me. If we'd been coming off an LH, then maybe. These things are often much clearer in RT than in hindsight because one is watching the activity itself, like looking at photos of a traffic accident as opposed to watching the accident unfold in real time. Not that trading is like a traffic accident, but I suppose one could make a case for that. As to the long, we had pretty much established a TR by then, and that entry seemed late, i.e., too close to R. And it was nearly 1100. If one were not to stop trading at 1100, he could have taken it, or gone long after the range was broken (price rose 12pts after it exited that range). Even if that first long had been taken, though, reversing at R would have been appropriate. That's just what one does in TRs, though always cognizant of the possibility of a BO and potential trend move. Db
-
Well, I assume that "op" and "ycl" mean opening and yesterday's close. And I know what a balance area is (in Wyckoff, a trading range), and I know what value is (the area of heaviest volume, generally the midpoint). But I have no idea what a "node" is. Be that as it may, I know you've been lurking for quite a while, and you may be making an effort to create a chart that is consistent with what's been going on here. So to answer your question, yes. For the most part. The entries are fine, though by the time you get to the third RET, you're pushing it. If the momentum is really great, it will still propel a late entry. But if the momentum is that great, it's unlikely you'll have a chance to enter until the momentum has begun to slow, at which point you don't want to be entering a long. As for the stops, no. The first one is fine as a catastrophe stop, though it could be lower. The rest are unnecessary. If you are exiting off a break of the DL, then just exit. Don't wait for price to hit your stop. To do so is to give the market the responsibility for managing your trade. The market is not responsible for managing your trade. You are. If you have to leave, then exit and begin again when you come back. Good to see you finally posted a chart. Wouldn't hurt to clean it up a little, tho. Helps to see things a little clearer Db
-
Yes, this was about as good an example of a foresight trade as I can think of. It broke out of the hinge when I anticipated that it would, tested the midpoint of the hinge twice, then took off. And only a couple of people were paying attention. But that's usually the way of it Looks like you were also right about MSFT. I wonder if it'll close the gap. Don't see any reason why not. Db
