firewalker

About that 11300 again... this might interest you guys: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/showpost.php?p=41302&postcount=100

How long does S/R last? If S/R are representative levels from the past where important action took place, so that traders act again on those levels at a later time, how far back does the memory of traders go? First a 4 hour chart from the DOW from about two years ago. Next, a 15-min chart of the last two days of the DOW e-mini:

I second that... the high of day was 426 on my chart! Hope you left it running a bit more...

incidentally, those are the two levels I'm closely watching 300 and 400 (or 410)

I guess they are all taking a holiday! fwiw, I'm spending some time in the chatroom lately, but will switch between live trading thread and this one and try to post as many trades in both But will be rather busy this week, except for Wednesday.

My guess is we are on target to break the January lows much further, because the ES still has to play catch up. I don't see any signs of capitulation neither. Therefore I suspect any move up will run out of fuel soon and we'll end the week lower. Friday is a holiday and I won't have much time to trade tomorrow, so I hope to put in a good one today and Wednesday. Happy trading

other half out breakeven

You are putting words in my mouth... I never said you should assume anything from someone else based on one example. I'm saying there are other people out there who trade (not 'gamble') more aggressive entries and do perfectly fine. When the huge volume comes in, stopping volume if you wish to call it so, thàt is the signal of the smart money. Not the next bar closing up or down. There is imo no reason to wait for a bar to close, because bars or candles are only a representation of price. I'm not arguing which is the better way to trade, in fact, I said "each to their own" and I appreciate both views. I even gave the example myself when I pointed out, in that particular trade chart from Sledge, that I took a more conservative entry, waiting for confirmation later. But I disagree that method A is better than method B or that method A leans closer to gambling than trading. Sledge, I was merely using your chart as an example. I didn't mean to attack JJ, VSA, or anybody or anything else. I even stressed that both options are perfectly valid for me. Don't know where all the hostility suddenly comes from For sure, did I say that getting in later was bad? I said that getting in later usually requires a wider stop, thus more risk. But if that makes the odds higher, than the risk is probably warranted. Either way, that's all for the individual trader to find out and determine what suits him or her best. I didn't say he wasn't and I don't think I showed anybody any disrespect. If I did, I apologize. Your trade, that we discussed in the other thread, was for me a perfectly valid setup. How you approach it, where exactly you enter and place your stop is down to the individual trader to determine what works for him. But the chart I posted was a one minute candlestick chart. I don't think you said anything about waiting for the next bar to close to enter. And that, in the end, was all I was trying to point out to JJ.

one half out +5 other half stop breakeven

Call me crazy, but long NQ 1857, stop 55. Minimum size, tight stop. I don't have support on the YM as such, but I do at this level on the Naz...

Your last sentence is correct. Apart from that, there is no gamble at all in taking an early entry. Have a look at Sledge's post here (posts #46 with the chart and #54 with the entry details). He explains a very early and aggressive (but spot on) entry. There was a test later on, where I went long, so I waited for confirmation. Each to their own, one must trade whatever style or strategy he feels fit. But I doubt the smart money are going to wait one hour to get a trade on if they see the signal is there...

I'm not sure it is per definition riskier. It depends on how you define 'risk'. What if the test you observed happened on a 1 hour bar. Are you going to wait for the next bar to close? If so, you might enter when price has already made it's turn and presuming you want to put your stop below the low of the test, that might been a hell of a lot more risk as opposed to entering on the test itself and having a very tight stop. I'm not criticizing your or someone else's approach. I'm just saying the 'risk' is determined not only by the probability of your trade, but also by the stop size and the position size you are trading. Each trader must find out what style suits him best, and whether he likes to wait for more confirmation (hence sacrificing the best entry) or enter aggressively with a tight stop, but -perhaps- a higher chance of getting stopped out.

I'm having trouble thinking ahead one week, let alone two months I fear there's not much here to hold this up though... see chart of the DOW.

Thanks for letting us know Buzz. I wish you all the best with your new strategy and approach. I hope it brings you all the profit you hope for

you lost me there

did I say that? fwiw, I'm still bearish as hell, the ES has yet to find support, the DOW might be at the January lows but we closed at the opposite extreme yesterday, so selling pressure completely overwhelmed any attempts from buyers. This being a Friday, in a bear market, with no major news on the map, I'm going to stick to shorting the market unless there is a very clear long opportunity screaming at me. Good trading everybody!

Just thinking out loud... but instead of considering a completely new review system, why not use the default thread functionalities? The post numbering issues would be solved, and you can add some sort of 'poll' to it, where every member who read the book can vote on the various scoring elements ('trading wisdom', 'new insights', 'value for money', etc...). It would have to show not percentages but the average score out of 5. The first post would still need to contain an image of the book cover or some sort of illustration that clearly identifies the thread as a book review thread instead of an ordinary one.

They can't cut rates imo... that would only send prices even higher, causing more inflationary pressures and creating a vicious circle... In the end the question is, does it matter? btw, Torero started an interesting thread: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f18/definition-of-stagflation-in-wikipedia-4034.html?highlight=fiscal+policy

I don't see where that good news would come from. On the other hand, yesterday new home sales figures were bad, but we didn't see much reaction of the market. Not that it matters to me, because I think the news is irrelevant

To be honest, I kind of expected a fight between 1 and 2 looks like it's turning more into 60-40 again Which is interesting imo, because most of the members who replied and posted seem to advocate option 2.

Interesting feature. I've been witness to some cases (on other forums) where such a function would've been greatly appreciated by many. From what I've seen, there'll be little need for that on TL... very impressed with the way you guys handle the site :thumbs up:

I don't know how many different interpretations one can give to the text below, but it seems self-evident that when Wyckoff was talking about the 'basic' law of supply and demand, he was talking about the one from economics. Quote: "... I realized that the Basic Law of Supply and Demand governed all price changes; that the best indicator of the future course of the market was the relation of supply to demand. And furthermore: "The Law of Supply and Demand operates in all markets in every part of the world. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise, and when supply is greater than demand, prices decline. " This isn't about what I or anyone else believes, or wants to believe. I thought we were discussing what Wyckoff wrote. Either you agree with it or not, but as you started the thread 'The Basic Law of Supply and Demand' it seemed logical of me to assume you were in agreement with what he said. If not, I apologize for making incorrect assumptions. Fwiw, I already stated that there were two important assumptions when talking about the law of supply and demand, often overlooked, which definitely help make the distinction. I don't know if it's been a mistake. Perhaps it's good to clear some things up. As for using the words "supply" and "demand", we still talk about supply- and demandlines, perhaps in lack of any better word. Quote: "This is true not only of stocks; it is constantly being demonstrated in markets for wheat, corn, cotton, sugar and every other commodity that is bought and sold; also, it is reflected in other markets such as real estate, labor, etc."

Thanks for taking the time to reply smwinc. You clearly have a good understanding of all of this and you seem like a smart guy. Not to mention you make interesting analogies. But... keep in mind, you don't need to convince me that market participants don't act rationally. I'm with you on (almost) everything you said, but it wasn't me who stated the markets moved according to the law of supply and demand. In fact, it was I who questioned if that really was the case... so we might be more in agreement than we previously thought. There are basically two assumptions we make when we are talking about the laws of micro-economics. One is that the goods being offered are all the same. And you've already pointed out that is not necessarily always the case. The other one hasn't been mentioned yet. Or at least not explicitly. The law of supply and the law of demand requires a market of 'perfect competition'. This basically means that no single buyer or seller can influence the market price... well we know this is not the case in the short term. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the smart money, or the professional money, versus the herd, etc.

(1) There's not much I can say to that, as most of it is diametrically opposed to how I see things. (2) I don't see the market as 'chaos', although there is a lot of irrationality in human behaviour, I consider some of the price action actually very logical. (3) It wasn't me who said the markets moved according to supply and demand, it was Wyckoff and probably others before and after him as well. (4) I think that it goes without saying that 'trading should never be your primary resource of income' is probably going against the purpose of what many on this trading forum want to achieve, which is trading for a living. (5) As for risk, I'd rather take care of that myself any day, then let someone else do it for me.

well I think it's in part because nothing changed... what they did was expected the market already priced that in last time what's left now, is casual whipsaw chop nothing here for me to trade... I'm off, cu guys later this week!