DbPhoenix

That's twice now you've mentioned the book, Tams. Thanks. With you as my publicity manager, I don't have to bother:) But, again, if one wants to read several thousand posts, it's all available for free. Db

Depends on what you mean by "very". Been doing this for 20yrs, and not for my own amusement. As for being a teacher in how to make money trading, judge for yourself. Tour the Wyckoff Forum. Db

Assuming your first trade was long, it was legit, but you need to plan ahead more. If-Then statements. For example, if your first trade was long, then what happens if there's no higher high? Are you prepared to exit the long and enter a short (If there's no higher high, Then I short at X)? By doing this, you'll be less likely to be caught by surprise and you won't be strung by an emotional response. After that, there's no reason to exit until you reach 10. And even though you don't have R drawn, I assume you know that that first move up was a failed breakout of the trading range. The reverse is true at the bottom. Even though you've broken the second supply line, you haven't reached S. So do you re-enter the short? It's justifiable, but if you do so, you'd see quickly that you're not making a lower low. This would prompt an exit from the short and a long entry. But without the If-Then statement, you'd likely be too fogged by disappointment to take action. And hindsight analysis is not useless if you engage in it to learn. These situations come up again and again. If one learns from the failure instead of wallowing in it, he's less likely to be unprepared the next time. You have no enemies. The market is not out to get you. You just have to keep your wits about you. Db

Note that the operative word from the beginning has been "can". So, yes, one can. Have I seen anyone do it? Yes, a very few. But then I know only a very few who are willing to put together a trading plan, much less follow it. But that has less to do with the "difficulty" of learning how to trade than it does with the trader. The trader who's willing to do the work can make extraordinary progress. But few are willing to do the work (believing instead that going to another webinar or whatever is doing the work). Db

Not meant to be slick. Some people are quicker on the uptake than others. And some are more dedicated than others. But what with replay, one can pack years of experience into six months. So, if he has the will, yes, he can learn what he needs to learn in six months. Db

That would depend on the trader. But if those who take years -- if ever -- to learn how to trade were to deduct all the time they've wasted on indicators and systems and courses and books and gurus and trading rooms and dvds and software and programs and manuals and newsletters, I doubt that the actual amount of time they spent on learning how to trade would come to much more than six months. Db

I agree. Even though we came close to the bottoms of the ranges, sellers just couldn't push it down that far, and goodoboy picked up on the long signal. As for the volume, I noticed when I drew those first charts that the bulk of the trades in each range were above the midpoint, not evenly distributed above and below. This suggested that we were going up. But that pitiful little thrust didn't amount to beans, and the short signal came quickly thereafter. Now, we'll just have to see. Db

There is no certainty in the market. But that does not mean that it must be complex by default. Db

I dunno. The fact that it failed to make a new low, plus exceeded the preceding two swing highs, is not a good sign. Db

Or ignore all the vendors and focus on what's available for free. Db

Somebody asked me about this the other day. Click here. Db

Six months is new? If you don't have it in six months, you should probably look for something else. Db

As the years roll by, I try to find ways of making this simpler. Unfortunately, as the years roll by, more and more beginners are -- shall we say -- "muddied" by an ever-increasing number of vendors and their nonsense. Once in a great while, I'll find somebody who's just starting out. In that case, the process seems to take no time at all. But more often the beginner has so much to unlearn that the process seems to take forever. In the case of volume, yes, it is important. But so much bad information is out there regarding volume that trying to correct the errors is a task in itself. And so many beginners think that Forex is the greatest thing since store-bought soap, and Forex doesn't have volume, that leaving volume off entirely is a lot less trouble and just might make things clearer. So, in a word, yes. If price is in a trading range, understand the dynamics of the range. If it isn't, understand the dynamics of trend. Volume can be helpful if you understand it. But if you hold a lot of wrong-headed notions about it, it's best to just set it aside and focus on price. Eventually, you'll be able to include volume again and you'll think "Oh yeah"... And, of course, the less said about indicators and Fib and Pivot Points and so forth, the better. Db

Sorry to interrupt, but those threads are nearly nine years old. I suggest you stick with what's here. It's current, and you can ask questions. Db

This is what I'm referring to:

I don't know what all these lines are, but the supply line is broken twice. The first time it fails to exceed the previous swing high, so you have a choice of staying in and hanging on to see if that level is breached or exiting the trade and re-entering the short if that level is not breached (the latter would have the advantage of earning extra points). The second time you have the same options, though in this case you're only two points from S, so you could just exit, collect the money, and take the rest of the day off. The stochastic isn't going to help you in either case. Db

And the tests of the midpoints fail. Db

Reading someone's posts is always helpful when trying to determine just where it is he wants to go, particularly when there are only 15. Db

And the midpoints are reached:

Those who have been following my posts know the drill: breakout/retracement, reversal/retracement. In these cases, however, the retracements occurred before the demand lines were broken. So, one can either wait for the next op or assume the additional risk and take the rets before the demand lines are broken, assuming they break. In this case, they both have. Db

Looks like both the ES and the NQ have poked above their trading ranges but, at the moment, have failed to hold there. So, they may try again, or they may make a round trip to S (note both found S at their midpoints):

Yes, the price:volume relationship is all you really need to trade. You don't even need the MACD, much less any of the hundreds of indicators available. Trading in this manner, however, is not for everyone. If you think you're cut out for it, see Trading By Price. Db

Try the attachment below. As for a grounding, the course is probably the best. You'll know after you've read the sections reproduced in the Forum's Stickies (they amount to about 40p) whether this is for you or not. If it is, read the entire course. A link to it is also provided in the Introduction. Db Preview02r.pdf

Impressive work. Just the sort of thing that a winner would do. I'm going to leave it to others to comment and ask questions. Otherwise, the Forum becomes Ask Db, and this place belongs just as much, if not more, to the people who are doing the work. But I do want to caution you about the accumulation and absorption business and applying it to futures (or Forex or commodities). Accumulation and absorption, as defined by Wyckoff, have to do with instruments that have floats, e.g., stocks. In fact, the accumulation process can't work unless there is some limit to what is available to accumulate. One can, of course, "collect" contracts, but this will have no effect on the power or extent of whatever upward movement may eventually occur. One who views this as accumulation may anticipate the typically explosive breakout to the upside, but what he is more likely to find is a moderate upward movement on unremarkable volume. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but if the movement is not what's anticipated, the trader may not take it, and that would be an error. Same with absorption. Yes, there may be absorption going on in the sense of buyers absorbing what sellers are throwing at them, but where in stocks there is a limit to how much buyers have to absorb, in futures et al there is no such limit. This changes the dynamic. Again, there may be and will very likely be the same movement upward out of the absorption reststop, but it may not be as dramatic as it might be with stocks. What so many "Wyckoff traders" who haven't read the course call "accumulation" and "absorption" are more likely features of auction market theory, which applies to any market which depends on demand and supply for its transactions. But the "accumulation/absorption" jargon has more cachet, and sells products and services, so it's preferred by vendors. Db

If you mean the website, that disappeared long ago. However, the best of it -- or at least what I considered to be the best of it -- is in my book. Db