DbPhoenix

Thank you for the elaboration and clarification. As you note on your first chart, however, most of your analysis is based on Bob Evans and not Wyckoff (there are no springs, creeks, ice and so forth in Wyckoff's course). While some members may find Evans' adaptations useful, they are not consistent with the content of the Wyckoff Forum as a whole, focusing as it does on Wyckoff's original course. In order to avoid confusion, therefore, I've retitled the thread. This will enable those who are interested in discussing Evans to do so without getting into unnecessary debates about what is or is not Wyckoff.

Why? How is this related to Wyckoff?

This has nothing to do with a personal vendetta, unless there's something going on between edabreu and brownsfan. Rather it has to do with what constitutes "spam". I've seen no evidence of spam in edabreu's posts. Yes, he's referred to a site that he finds valuable and which assesses a fee after a free trial. How is this any different from Linda Raschke? Are all references to her trading room to be deleted and/or banned because it isn't free? As for demonstrating trading prowess, Steve Nison and Brett Steenbarger are widely admired, but has anyone ever watched them trade in real time? Have either of them ever posted blotters? If so, have those blotters ever been verified? How about their trading accounts? My point is that this anti-spam campaign can easily become a witchhunt, and those who have something valuable to offer (two of edabreu's posts have been nominated for POTM) can be run off by this pointless persecution. If edabreu or any other member relentlessly trumpets his for-fee services, whether he offers anything in return or not, then he should be shown the door. But if everyone who has ever mentioned a for-fee trading room or software package or seminar or DVD/CD instructional packet or course or trading program is to be banned, TL will have only a few dozen members left.

A more interesting question is why would you bother to ferret out the links in the first place? 86834 provides a link to his blog in his posts and "mentorship" is clearly advertised. Why have you not launched one of your investigations into 86834?

Doesn't really matter. All one has to do is google "edabreu" and he will find all he needs to find. And it's a lot faster than tracing link after link to find the bloody knife or the smoking gun

How would you apply Wyckoff principles to a trade here? What, for example, is the trend?

I agree with your analysis, but there is a problem with using the top-down approach here. Now that CC is pretty much out of the picture, there is no other retailer in the RLX like BBY. Rather it consists of grocery stores, discount retailers, clothing stores, department stores, etc. Therefore, what the retail index and consumer discretionary are doing may not be particularly relevant. BBY may be doing well because it is in some ways unique. But it may also revert to previous value for the same reason. In other words, the group and sector may not be helping to propel it forwards, but they may not provide support on the way down, either. Your plan, then, as far as the stop goes, is well-considered. But go past that. What happens if the stop is triggered? Is there a re-entry in that area? What if it goes all the way back to 31? Is there a re-entry there? How will any of this be played if and when it occurs? By thinking about all of this in advance, your friend will be better prepared to take advantage of whatever opportunities arise rather than wallow in disappointment over the fact that his stop was hit. Incidentally, you said at the top that "(this isn't money specifically allotted to equity investing, so he is risk averse)". Don't you mean that under these circumstances he is risk tolerant?

Here ya go..........

You've made your position clear on these posts in one way or another here and there over time, but having it all in one place, short, sweet, and to the point, is a plus, key word perhaps being "short". As I've said, I'd like to see the posts reported in some way other than email, perhaps as a post in a thread dedicated to that purpose (such as that proposed for posts under moderation), for two reasons: (1) the person reporting the post knows that his report actually went somewhere to somebody and wasn't a waste of time like those little comment cards one fills out in hotels and (2) any mod or admin who's logged in will see the report immediately, not a day or several days later. On a sidenote, about the icon. Why "S"? I'm sure there's a reason for it, but it's not obvious. Without making the frame too busy, why not make use of the icons that are already available to us, such as :spam: or or :evil tongue:? Or you could create an icon of villagers with pitchforks and torches. But the idea is to make it clear just what the button is and what it's for without explaining anything. A simple "Report Post" might be all that's needed (I'm sure you've noticed the extraordinary amount of clutter surrounding posts on some sites). The object is to let members know that they have options. More than once I've read complaints in threads along the lines of "why doesn't a moderator do something about this?", the answer being that nobody ever notified a moderator that there was a problem. Whatever notification system we come up with, then, needs first to be quick and easy-to-understand.

A reminder of why 1300 is important.

If you want to pursue this business of support and resistance and volume further, this post may be of interest to you.

I wonder, tho, how much programming it would take. I'd also like to see a change in how reports are posted and distributed. Something more immediate. Perhaps even public.

Clever. Have you seen this in use anywhere?

However, you now have your range, at least in the NQ: yesterday's swing low to yesterday's 1050 swing high. No need to guess.

I don't want to appear to be a wet blanket. Nothing is so wonderful that it can't be improved upon, if for no other reason than that the world turns and changing conditions sometimes demand accommodation. However, change can often bring about unintended consequences, and one can find oneself in an even worse pickle than if he had done nothing at all. Allowing -- or even expecting -- members to rate each other both positively and negatively is one such change. You've explained, both publicly and via PM, the kind of site you want and the kind of behavior you expect: be respectful of each other and disagree without going on the attack. This really ought to be enough, even with regard to suspected spammers (in other words, don't immediately assume heresy and disembowel everyone who has ever been to a pay site or used a pay service or for-fee software and has anything good to say about it). Trying to codify what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior leads to the kinds of problems that the US Legislature is grappling with as we speak. One site that has been around for a very long time has very little moderation because very little moderation is necessary. People don't go there to fight; they go there to discuss stocks and investing (maybe traders are a fundamentally pricklier lot than investors). Another has virtually no moderation because nobody really gives a damn. Moderators in fact engage in the same kinds of behavior that they're supposed to moderate. Those who visit the site without being fully armed do so at their peril. Yet another has a complex set of rules for behavior that look just great on paper, but nobody adheres to them because it's just too complicated. Getting the site owner or any of the moderators to act is not unlike getting the US to reduce carbon emissions. Complaints about posts often took days to be addressed, in which time a little problem became a multi-page flamefest. And even then, the "solution" was generally little more than a plug of tissue paper in the dike. It took three years to ban a particularly divisive member simply because nobody wanted to assume the responsibility. Tread carefully, then, when considering change. Consider whether the difficulties you see may be temporary. Consider that they may be situational (when people aren't doing well with their investments or trading, they tend to become angry, and that anger is easily vented online; this anger, however, has everything to do with the individual and nothing at all to do with how a given site is administered). The "SPM Method" thread, for example, was not a difficult puzzle since several members asked that it be closed and most of the participants were from another site. Unfortunately, resentments aren't so easily capped and can easily spill over into other threads. The question, however, again, is whether this necessitates a remodeling of the site. Sorry to go on so long, but I've been online since 1994 and I've seen a lot of sites come and go. I've also seen a large variety of rule structures, and the more detailed structures are not successful unless one has the "right" constituency. And if one has the right constituency, the detailed structures aren't necessary.

There may be ways to make this work, but other sites have had problems. The thumbsup/down idea, for example, sounds great, but doesn't always work out as expected in practice. If those who are giving the thumbs down are able to do so anonymously, then the thumbs down are frequently given for reasons that have nothing to do with the post. If those who are giving the thumbs down are required to declare themselves, as they do now when thanking someone for a post, then a lot of revenge activity can take place, and the whole system of rating posts becomes a parody of itself. Others' experiences may of course vary, and someone else may have found a way around these difficulties. When you say "increase", do you mean that a dozen people are involved? Six? Two? Will the number of people who are unhappy with the current moderation design be greater or less than those who may be unhappy with a change in the design? Is the moderation design at fault? There's always the possibility that the moderation design is just fine as is. The member who left gave as good as he got, and it's unlikely that the tactics employed by ET members on a daytrip will be much affected by whatever we do. It seems to me that nearly all TL members understand that arguing on a public board is generally pointless, and when challenged, they most often retire, preferring to focus on something more important. But not all sites are like this, and those who seek out confrontation will eventually find it. So perhaps the question becomes whether to do something about the site or to do something about the person who is perpetually itching for a fight (remember "sf"?). Is the site in fact being assaulted? If so, what is the simplest solution? If not.....

Some people understand the difference between expressing an opinion and attacking someone. Some people don't. Which is the point of moderation. But since moderators cannot edit or delete posts outside their own forums, the person to whom these concerns should be addressed is James. Only he can explain why he deleted any given post or thread.

Unfortunately, while "ignore" seems like a good idea, it doesn't work in practice due to the responses that the ignored post and/or user receives which in turn generally quote the ignored post. And this can go on for thirty or forty posts or more before someone finally steps in and is faced with cleaning up a big mess that could all have been avoided by deleting the initial post or, even better, by the initial poster exercising some restraint.

If one wants an "open forum", ET is only a mouse-click away. On the other hand, if one wants a forum in which members are expected to treat each other with at least a minimum of respect, this one, with a couple of exceptions, works just fine.

In your OP, you said "for any discussion related to TL's moderation, please post here". So perhaps you could clarify what these issues are and why you believe they are ongoing.

I hope that you will consider this action carefully. Rather than provide a forum where we can air our differences in public, this course will encourage us to attack each other in secret, resulting in the sort of atmosphere which is exactly the opposite of what TL has traditionally valued. If a post is abusive and disrespectful, it is up to the moderator of the forum (or the administrator, if the forum has no moderator) to act. Waiting for some sort of consensus among the membership merely extends the number of posts involved and prolongs the conflict, and what was one post becomes twenty, resulting in the "ton" of deletion notices. And if nothing is done about the member making the post, then the problem is most likely perpetuated, and the need to act is merely postponed. As for disputes between moderators and members, these are not avoided by concealing the identity of the moderator who has deleted something. Rather the resentment becomes free-floating, usually resulting in further posts which are made because of that resentment. If a moderator wants to avoid disputes, perhaps he should think about why he wanted to become a moderator in the first place. What is it exactly that a moderator is supposed to do, or not do? One should also keep in mind that hundreds of members visit the site every day, and the actions of one or two people become noticeable largely because the site runs so smoothly and because members do behave toward each other in ways that are very different from what one sees on other sites. One can therefore begin to perceive incorrectly that everything is degenerating into chaos when one needs only to weed the garden. As for the comment earlier about campaigning for a POTM, why not? If one sees a post that he believes should be seen by as many members as possible, I see nothing wrong with drawing attention to it and encouraging people to vote for it if there's some sort of recognition involved and if they think it's worth voting for. This is a very different matter from encouraging people to vote against a post, which as of now is fortunately not possible. A more pertinent behavior -- at least as regards the chat room -- is kicking people out of the room, sometimes playfully and sometimes not so playfully. It does not require a stretch of the imagination to see this being done on the boards as well if members are given the option to do so. This to me is a negative, and is completely unnecessary.

The difficulties presented in many cases center around the trader's wanting to trade when he wants to trade and not when the market tells him to. In this case, the market told him to buy in November and sell in February. Other trades, while potentially profitable, are not as compelling. The principles in trading off daily charts are no different than trading any other chart. The results just take longer. In this case, while anything's possible, the chart does not scream STRENGTH to me. Price could not make a higher high in February over July, nor could it hold a higher high over the swing high in September. In addition, it's broken the Nov-Jan trendline. On the other hand, you're at an important S/R level dating back to December. I suggest, therefore, that you look at both sides of the trade and prepare a short as well as a long. A break lower might not be especially clean, and your stop might have to be wider than you'd like. But at least your chances of showing a profit off the trade would be enhanced. There are also opportunities for scaling in and out of these trades that are not easily accomplished in intraday trading. You needn't, for example, go all in at 90. You could instead enter in thirds. Not only does this help to temper whatever emotional baggage you may bring to the trade but it also presents more opportunities for managing the trade toward profit.

We appear to be playing post tag. Rather than search for rooms, perhaps you'd be willing to open up a journal thread or a blog and post a few charts showing what you're doing and why. Then at least those who are interested would be able to give you something more than the usual hypothetical theoretical generalizations like "cut your losses short". If not, someone might at least be able to route you toward a room that uses the same indicators in which you're interested.

Sorry, your profile said Afghanistan BTW, speaking of indicators, you may want to look at this as well.

Sorry your reception has been so chilly. I see you're from Afghanistan, so you probably have plenty on your plate already. I also see that your only post -- other than those to this thread -- had to do with an indicator, and you mention several indicators above. I assume, then, that you're looking for an indicator-driven strategy. Have you tried to develop one of your own? One way or the other, is there some particular reason why you're looking for a mentor or room to show you how to use indicators to trade? Whatever you do, expect both a mentor and a trading room moderator to demonstrate to you that they are consistently profitable, at least if they're charging you anything (if they're not charging anything, you may pick up some bad habits, but at least you won't lose much, if you're careful). This is where the opening post to this thread will come in handy. But whether you travel that route or go it alone, perhaps with the advice offered in the thread link I provided, remember that your first priority should be to hold onto your capital. Beginners are for some reason desperate to give away their money, either to gurus or to the market. Take your time. There's no hurry.