YertleTurtle

I'm not sure why you are showing such hostility toward me. I'm happy to expand on how I use Wyckoff principles to trade. I also reposted the original course because all the links have gone dead. I'm not going to write a dissertation 3 months after a question was asked.

I use Wyckoff for trading gold and forex. You are not wasting your time although this forum is dead.

Wyckoff's original course Wyckoff - Course.pdf (public domain) - and Division 2 Tape Reading and Active Trading Tape Reading and Active Trading.pdf

What is OS? The new SLA document is first class. Oversold. OB=overbought.

It has improved some over the last few years. Its still not great but it really depends what you want to do with it. For basic charting etc. its fine. I should note I don't place orders through ToS but just chart.

Anyone still lurking in here? I'd like to get some people excited about Taylor again.

Diva - yes fib traders use 50% as one of their levels and no this has nothing to do with the fib sequence. They just added it because it works.

It annoys me to no end because of the bad math being used. 50% is not a fib level but every fib trader I've seen uses this. If their "theory" is there is something sacred about these numbers then adding a level erodes this argument. Fib levels often appeal to beginners who use these levels in lieu of an understanding of market structure. There are also so many fib levels that they are always going to look appealing to a beginner. I personally believe (although I'm not going to waste time looking at it) that I could use levels like 25%, 33%, 50%, 66%, 75% etc. and these projections would look equally good. Plenty of unsuccessful traders use fib levels. I know at least one institutional trader who uses fib levels so he can run stops. I always find the study of something ethereal to be a waste of time.

Your son's sequence is correct. The ratio of n/(n+1) in that sequence approaches the number that is approximated as 6.18. 33%, 50% and 75% have nothing to do with Fibonacci. I'm sure there are people who successfully trade this stuff but it annoys me to no end. Beginners seem to stumble on Fibonacci levels and treat it as the holy grail.

gozila - Here you go: http://cdn3.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/131/17907d1263785828-wyckoff-resources-wyckoff-method-tape-reading.pdf

I have no problem with vendors (as long as they aren't selling the moon) but I agree with DB - vendors aren't a good solution for someone who wants to learn how to be an independent trader. Often beginners hop from vendor to vendor and end up with system indigestion. Its much better to study, test and learn one strategy.

I'm so confused now that you are no longer Cartman in a wizard costume.

A little off topic but god I hate fibs. I do watch the 50% level occasionally but this isn't a fib level. I'm not sure how 50 got added to the fibonacci sequence for traders but it certainly isn't based on the math of the sequence.

I don't really agree here. A trader can have fixed rules without developing an automated system. I am a discretionary day trader but I have well defined trade setups and profit targets as well as money management practices that allow me to trade successfully. So some of my rules are fixed and some are fluid but they are clearly defined. These are my rules but I couldn't simply program them into a computer and print money. I think using the term "criteria" instead of "rules" is just semantics.

If I plan my trade and take profits where my plan indicates and the market goes another 1000 pips - I could care less. I got my piece and followed my plan. What the market does after I exit is the same to me as what the market does while I'm sleeping - its just part of the next setup. Too often traders become obsessed with what they missed but like DbP pointed out - you can't trade 24/7 and you rarely will capture 100% of a move. There is always another setup. Breaking one's plan is much more criminal that missing profit or missing a trade. If you are consistently missing a ton of profit then its time to re-evaluate the plan.