DbPhoenix

Whether Evans was a Master Trader or not is beside the point. If you want to delve into all that, address it in "rollotape"'s thread, as you seemed so eager to do while he was providing his "Wyckoff analysis". None of this is addressed in Wyckoff's course, much less in Undeclared Secrets. Sticking to Williams' work might prove to be enormously helpful to those who are trying to understand VSA. It would certainly be simpler. Plus nobody would have to buy anything. Hope this is helpful.

It doesn't really matter. None of these are mentioned in Undeclared Secrets, and this is the VSA Forum, after all.

Actually, it's all about the springboard, since that is what has been forming since yesterday morning. And though I agree about Wyckoff's attitudes towards the Schabacker-style pattern, the springboard is a pattern, as is the hinge. In any case, this isn't about danger points, either, unless you consider anything outside support or resistance to be a danger point. But that can lead to problems in real-time trading. And, again, there is no mention of "Springs" in Wyckoff's course. As for the scalp, I guess it depends on how you define "scalp". When you posted your chart, price was at 22.5. So far, it hasn't been able to get past 23. But getting back to VSA, can you describe all of this in VSA terms rather than Wyckoff since this is the VSA Forum? Hope this is helpful. Ah, a change to your original post. What short did I call for? What I wrote was "Just a note to point out that premkt activity highlights 62 yet again as the price level to pay close attention to." Hardly a call to short. Those who've read the material know quite well that resistance can become support when price rises into it. As for "Unit 3", that's part of the SMI course. As I said, Wyckoff makes no mention of them.

Perhaps you're thinking of Wyckoff's "springboard", which is addressed in detail in his course. There is no mention of "springs". Or perhaps there's a VSA pattern that matches what you see in the chart. Incidentally, it's probably worth pointing out the resistance at 924-5, particularly for those who aren't scalping.

Just a note to point out that premkt activity highlights 62 yet again as the price level to pay close attention to.

If you follow charts in real time, or if you break them down to a very small bar interval, such as 1m, you'll find that price moves up on very little volume. This is because of what those who are accumulating the stock are doing in order to attract attention (if they were already attracting attention, volume -- trading activity -- would be higher before price ever moves up). Price pokes its head up and traders notice, either because they've been following it or because of a scan they've run. Those who notice may be interested in riding this particular train. That increases trading activity, i.e., raises the volume level, which in turn attracts more attention and more trading activity for the reasons stated above. And while ordinarily I'd love to go into all this again, it's already been done. I ask those who are interested in discussing it further to read the linked thread above and the Volume Studies pdf also linked above. Since I haven't heard from facc, I'll assume until I'm told otherwise that he intended to post his question someplace where he could get help with LII sorts of considerations. If that's the case, those who are interested in pursuing this discussion can do so in the thread linked earlier, "Volume Observation".

But not guaranteed. As it turns out, this trade wasn't finished. But that's the way it is with real-time trading (as opposed to Here's A Trade From Yesterday). So what happened? Price dropped from 62 down to 56, then decided it didn't want to go any further. Apparently it wasn't finished with its business. But does this mean the trade should not have been taken? It was at R. And there was a divergence. So there's little justification for not taking it, unless one didn't and then tried to rationalize not taking it. But those who are the least bit interested in this should understand that these divergences, at resistance, will almost always provide enough propellant to move price away from the entry price (unless one just sits there like a deer in headlights and enters way too late) and get the trader at least to a breakeven point. This particular trade illustrates the fact, however, that one can't stop thinking or observing just because he's in. This isn't the end; it's only the beginning. If price doesn't do what he expects it to do, he'd better figure out why and figure it out fast. So let's return to the charts and see where we are. See that little red arrow? That's where we are right now, just having hit 60.5: Now look at the next bar. This is where we're going next: Now what's that all about? And where is price going now? Should the trader be thinking about going long (even though the long train left the station back at 43.5; see earlier chart, above)? Or was he just early on the short? Is this another opportunity? When you don't know what's going on, and price appears to be taking off for parts unknown, look left. Try to find whatever resistance level you missed that may now be providing you with that next opportunity. Here. Look left. See that trading range from yesterday? You didn't think it amounted to much, but Surprise! Now draw a line from the top of that little bitty pissant trading range forward: Now waddaya know about that? And here's what the tick chart looks like at that point: Now this takes a bit of flexibility. Yes, there is a divergence here, but it is a low-grade one. And, yes, it is doing all this at the R provided (maybe) by the upper limit of that trading range. What may provide the deciding factor here is not that price gets up to that level but how it does so. Note how fast it climbs. Notice how little time it spends at each level on its way up. Note how it barely prints at the top. Then note how the TQ plunges while price is still waffling around near the top, trying to decide what to do. There is no one element that says Short Me. It's all of it. And even then, one is free to place a buystop above all of this and a sellstop below, then let price do whatever it pleases. Wrapping this up, we see that price tested this very same level yet again later this afternoon. If you're still around and up to it, there's another short opportunity here. First the context: And the TQ, with that very same line: Ain't resistance and support wonderful things? But that should be enough. This isn't exceptionally difficult. No new jargon to memorize. Nothing to label. Not many lines to draw. Just support and resistance and how price behaves if and when it gets there. Those who are interested should play with this. Those who do are welcome to use this thread to post the results of their play. .

That's up to the OP. I suspect, like all other members, that he already has a mother.

OTOH, volume is central to the Wyckoff approach. And this is the Wyckoff Forum. Those who are interested in Wyckoff will also be interested in volume. Those who aren't, maybe not. One can assume, however, that anyone who posts here is. Unless they got lost.

I forget, however, that there are a number of ways to find new posts and threads and work one's way into various forums, and facc may not be posting in the right place. I should point out, then, that this particular approach couldn't care less about bid and ask volume. Unless and until there's a transaction, the "intent" is irrelevant. Those who are interested in volume -- including those who have become discouraged by the whole bid and ask thing -- can look at the thread I linked to earlier, and/or the Volume Studies pdf. Those who are instead interested in LII and so forth will find boatloads of information on it in other forums. But the Wyckoff Forum, at least in terms of LII and other forms of bid and ask, is a dry well.

And then we hit resistance at 60: See how this works? Support and resistance. Basic. .

Drove right thru all of that down to support at the 42 level. Tacking on today's activity to yesterday's chart and extending the support line, price hit it right on the money (see yesterday's chart, above, for the original):

As for charts, you can copy your chart to Paint and save it as a gif, jpg, etc. But as for lots "traded" at the bid or ask, transactions do not distinguish between bid and ask. How many transactions were there at 08:30 in total? If there were what you consider to be a great many, and price rose 10pts, then demand outweighed supply. It's that simple. Again, there are lots of examples in the Volume Observation thread (see link above).

I'm a bit surprised at the response to these posts. Clearly some need is being met, though I'm not sure that that need is. In any case, we are in the middle of yesterday's range, with all the multiple resistance levels: 70, 60, etc. But this is where the TQ can come in handy. If one doesn't know which resistance level is going to be the one with the muscle, the behavior of the TQ can provide a clue. If, for example, we move up to 60 and there's a serious divergence, I'll try that. But if price just yawns, I'll more likely leave it alone and wait for an attempt at 70(+/-). Or, if it retreats instead, see what happens at 52. Who knows? Open mind, flexibility, etc, etc.

If by "rising market" you mean price that is rising after having bounced off support, then it's actually the opposite, i.e., demand has overcome supply, or, more exactly, sellers are done and demand is allowed to move price higher without being impeded. Again, it's always more helpful to have a chart. But there are plenty of examples available already. See the Volume Observation thread, for one.

I'd have to see a chart example to give you more than a general answer, but if, for example, price is at a certain level and a lot of trading activity (volume) begins to take place and price is going more or less nowhere, then there is likely an equivalent exchange of buying pressure and selling pressure going on. In other words, sellers are unloading what they want or need to unload onto willing and eager buyers, but whatever imbalances there may be are not strong enough to move price. Price is in stasis, or a state of equilibrium. Once this exchange has taken place and the trading activity falls off, then the underlying nature of buying pressure vs selling pressure can manifest itself. If sellers are "done", then only a slight bias toward buyers can move price substantially higher on very little volume (if volume were higher, sellers would still be active). If, on the other hand, buyers are out of steam, then very little selling pressure and coincidental low volume (low trading activity) will prompt price to drop. Think effort and result. Trading activity (volume) is a clear manifestation of effort. What are the results of all this effort? If zip, then buyers and sellers are probably at a standoff. But what happens then? If price rises thereafter, then sellers likely unloaded most of what they wanted to unload, but buyers are still willing to pay the premium. If the opposite occurs, buyers are out of bullets, and there's little to prevent sellers from driving price down. Why sellers would want to drive price down in the first place is another matter, depending on who they are and what their motives are. But this should serve for now.

Price moves because of transactions, not because of intentions. Bid and ask "volume", therefore, are not pertinent unless and until they result in a transaction. Once the actual transactions have taken place, one can then analyze the results of those efforts and judge the balance between buying pressure and selling pressure. If you're scalping, however, you're more likely to be concerned about the initial impulse away from your entry point. That may have more to do with where the entry is made than with the volume behind it. Without knowing your strategy, I can only guess.

So what happened later? Price made it all the way to 1469. (And see that little red arrow pointing at that bar at 1460? When price busts through a particular level like it's been shot out of cannon, you can be sure that the resistance level you thought was a resistance level really was a resistance level.) And what did the TQ look like at resistance? Time to scale out, or exit entirely. Maybe even reverse, if you're not tired.

The TQ was not particularly helpful this morning. It and the NQ clung together like horny teenagers. But if one is patient enough and puts the Wyckoff methodology first (climaxes, tests, springboards and so on), the TQ can provide that extra little bit of confirmation that one may need to pull the trigger. First, because of the lows put in Monday, yesterday, and overnite, we have to back up a bit to find support: Now we look to the same bar interval as my previous post and locate support and resistance for today (I haven't transferred all the notations from the previous chart to this one because I'm too lazy and for you it's only a little scroll upwards): Here, because of yesterday's high, we have resistance at around 1468 (the more recent swing point trumps the one from a week ago: see previous post). Next most likely "zone of interest" (see how jargon can creep in?) is 1460. Then we have those little trading ranges that were formed Monday, yesterday, and last nite. That they were interrupted by that rally to 1468 does not change the fact that a lot of trading went on there, and that alone makes them important. So we have yet another possible resistance level at 1452-3, and support at 1440-42 (see first chart). The TQ provides no help as it and price bounce back and forth between the support and resistance levels noted above, though one can make pure resistance and support trades at 09:33 at 1452 and at 10:01/2/3 at 1439 if he's good enough. But that's not the subject of this thread, the TQ. The TQ does give guidance 45m later during the test of the first swing low at 1439 (see the little red arrows, above?): Look what happens here. Price reaches the level of the first swing low 45m earlier (and you see now why it's necessary to have at least a 1m chart to provide the context), but then it just sits there, for over two minutes. And while it's sitting there (which, again, is a relatively important support level: see first chart), the TQ waves goodbye and heads north. This may give the trader a bit more confidence toward taking the trade. Is this an in-your-face divergence that is to be taken regardless? No. It's really pretty subtle. But look where it's taking place, at a level where, according to Wyckoff's methodology, the trade ought to be taken anyway. The TQ just gives it that little extra oomph, the cherry on the sundae, the paprika on the deviled egg.

Not likely to be of any more use than the other one. The issue is not the legitimacy of VSA, which is a perfectly reasonable approach. The issue is the connection with TradeGuider. And the problems relating to that will not just go away. If you want to move forward rather than sideways, why not begin a thread entitled "TradeGuider Crock or Not" and move all posts that are TG related to that thread? That would at least help keep the focus of the forum where it should be, on VSA.

FWIW, this didn't start with Manby but rather 60 posts ago (so much for the "minimal" influence of TG). Manby just added to the "thrust" But I agree with sevensa. Just let it go. As long as the VSA Forum has the welcome mat out for TG, this will occur again and again, even though the fix is a simple one. (As for sevensa's suggestion to "open a new thread to show and educate people about how they should be trading", that's what the Pure VSA thread is about, at least in terms of VSA.)

Hardly. It was an exchange years ago with a TG salesman on a message board who had no idea what he was selling or what supply and demand were all about. I pointed out that Wyckoff can't be computerized. Anyone who thinks it can doesn't understand what Wyckoff is all about. If you're serious, do a search. Look for TradeGuider, TG, Gavin, GH, Krueger, TK, software, seminar, bootcamp, Master the Markets, and so forth. As I suggested earlier, TradeGuider ought either to become a sponsor of TL or any mention of it ought to be deleted, just like the links to any other commercial site. Those who are interested in plain ol' VSA, uncorrupted and unadulterated, have plenty to read and study.

While I empathize with your frustration, TG and VSA are inextricably connected, and that's not due to "outsiders". TG trumpets itself as The Home of VSA (with the full cooperation of Tom Williams). VSA and TG are repeatedly joined in the same posts. Sebastian Manby works for them. Eiger is their "resident psychologist". There are multiple threads in the VSA Forum having to do with TG and TG personnel and TG products and TG announcements. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that newcomers to VSA should get the impression that VSA and TG are the same thing. This misunderstanding makes them ripe for TG promotions and products. Why this is allowed to continue, particularly considering that TG does not contribute in any way to the financial well-being of TradersLaboratory, I've never been able to understand. Some time back, I made an issue of this, resulting in the "Pure VSA" thread, and that thread continues to meet a need, and for those who are interested in VSA per se, I should think that the "Pure VSA" thread, along with the "Helpful Ideas" thread, would be a cornerstone of a VSA Forum. As it is, however, the VSA Forum is largely a TradeGuider TradeMart. Granted, if all the posts on TG or referring to TG were deleted or moved, the forum would be considerably slimmer than it is. But then the idea that it takes 4000 posts to convey an approach is perhaps unreasonable. As for the "church of Wyckoff", I'm not crazy about that either, and I wish it would stop. Williams borrowed a few ideas from Wyckoff and came up with VSA. To say then that VSA is "based on" Wyckoff is somewhat of a reach (guess how many times Wyckoff is mentioned in Undeclared Secrets). In fact, the moment that the effort to make software out of it began, it ceased to have very much to do with Wyckoff at all. To become frustrated, then, over these continuing attacks on TG is to close the barn door LONG after the horses have bolted. On the other hand, removing all references to TG is unrealistic. However, if those who are truly interested in VSA and VSA only are serious, I suggest closing the VSA I, II, and III threads (read only) along with the TG CD thread, the Todd Krueger thread, the Master the Markets ebook thread, etc, and refocusing the effort on the Pure VSA thread and the Helpful Hints thread. In this way, those who are interested in VSA can go on about their business, and they will very likely have a much easier time of understanding what Williams is talking about. TinGull had the right idea when he started the first VSA thread two years ago. But TG made its appearance by post #3. Nothing can be done about that now. But can we not find some way to end this repeated wrangling?

You can customize a simple volume-at-price chart at BigCharts, though you may not consider that to be sufficient.

Wyckoff is not about being mechanical. It's not about quantification. It's not about indicators and geometry. It's not about questionable "patterns", much less the cute and clever names invented for them. It's not about trading "bar by bar". It's not about software and little red and green arrows. What it is about is trading price movement, continuous and uninterrupted price movement, price movement that is created by the imbalances between buying pressure and selling pressure. The further one moves away from that and toward bars and candles and indicators and patterns, the more closely focused his attention becomes on those bars and so forth and the more disconnected he becomes from price movement, which may be the reason why so many people continue to fail and resort instead to mechanical methods (which may or may not serve them any better). The TICKQ is a simple measure of market breadth. It is not an indicator, anymore than the Dow Jones Industrial Average is an indicator. It has no settings. You can't futz with it. Plotting it against stocks, ETFs, futures, or any other trading instrument is not much different than overlaying a price plot of the S&P or the DJIA, which tells you how whatever you're trading is doing against the broader market. Was anything like the TICKQ available a hundred years ago? No. Would Wyckoff have used it if it were? Given his repeated emphasis on knowing what the broader market and the various groups were doing before selecting a stock and while trading it, I have no doubt that he would. I suggest, therefore, that those who are tired of labeling bars and candles and drawing patterns and searching for hidden meanings and trying to discern the motives and activities of the so-called "smart money" and want something simpler and more elemental may find the TICKQ helpful in detecting those turning points at which price is running out of steam. For example, from yesterday: First locate support and resistance: Zooming in to the day's sweet spot: And making the entry: Entry can be made as soon as the divergence manifests itself, a tick below, two ticks, three ticks, whatever. That's up to the trader. The order can be a market order, a limit order, a stop-limit order, whatever. Makes no difference. Up to the trader. What matters are not the minutiae of entry location or order type but the fact that price and the TICKQ are moving in different directions at resistance. If one doesn't grab that basic fact and hang onto it, then all the geegaws and tschotkes that he has loaded onto his chart aren't going to rescue him.