BlowFish

Having come across MC version 1.0 and buying in early version 2.0 I can say its a whole lot better than it used to be. Having said that there are lots of little (and not so little) niggles (some may or may not be fixed version 5.0. I gave up upgrading as it was often a painful and expensive process ) Stuff I reported way back when has still only got attention in V5.0, staggering really. Compared to say Laurence and the guys at Tickquest they just don't have that spark. BUT it has native support for easylanguage and decent data feed support. That counts for quite a lot. Most things it does adequately but ELA support is actually pretty damn fine. Its a shame,that makes it an OK drop in replacement for TS and that is a strength but a weakness too. It could be so much more with some ahead of the curve thinking.

Ahh it seems like an issue with google chrome dealing with an RSS feed. Works fine in firefox. From a cursory look they seem to be the same 'chapters' but in a different order.

It's more like if a man looks in a car dealership window for an hour but does not buy a car it tells you nothing about 'value'. If he buys a car (and other buyers do as well) at a price that does tell you something about value. Without trades taking place (volume) you have no consensus on value. I agree with your first statement the VAH VAL are very important because so many traders watch them. However I believe they are self fulfilling. They are 'bogus' due to a couple of assumptions made in there construction that are just not true. Despite that they are very useful heuristics. In short they still 'work' so who cares right?

It can not. Volume is not reported on spot FX it iss actually bid ask changes. This indicator needs bid price ask price last price and last volume data, it is integral to how it works. You could use FX futures data or use 'upticks/downticks' as a proxy, I think it the latter would likely be pretty unsatisfactory.

It is easy to get bogged down in the shear amount of information in the book. "If this and that price has a tendency to do the other". Lots of observations of that nature that tend to fall outside core 'principles'. I think it's one of those books where getting the broad brush down first is probably wise, then taking small bits of detail to go over slowly. I just wish the charts where larger and the notes where facing! There is a whole chapter on timeframes and focus which contains pretty sensible advice.

Also, if the buyers remove all/most of the floating supply during accumulation price can certainly break to the upside on fairly light volume.

That link didn't work for me but there are a bunch of podcasts here Ari Kiev's Trading to Win! podCast Cheers.

The 'truth' is the truth Sadly quite a few people regurgitate opinions (usually read somewhere) as 'facts'. Really the best thing to do is use what appeals to you using your own (empirical) research. Things like VAH and VAL 'work' even though you can challenge some of the premises that there construction is based upon. I guess this suggests that if enough people believe in something it becomes that thing

Just because price languishes within a bracket for a long period of time does not mean trade is being facilitated. There is a good chance that is being but who knows? Time is a proxy. If you have heavy volume within a bracket you know trade is being facilitated.

Indeed, really it's not hard to see when you have watched 'price action' for a time. Of course deciding what to trade can be a different matter You watch price and you know pretty much how lower time frame and higher time frame charts will look. Mind you it would be negligent not to point out the many warnings that Al sprinkles through his writing on leaning too heavily on timeframes under 5mins. (in short dont!). I am rather enjoying the 15second chart currently but I am not looking for 'signals' on it. He also cautions that if you aren't sure don't trade it - plenty of opportunities on a 5 min during the course of a day without needing to take things that aren't clear.

Post 8 talks about order book and intend. I think you miss my point. Using your example if 5 is bid 10 asked does it not tell you something if the price that is actually negotiated is 10 i.e. the buyers are happy to pay the asking price. What if 10 is bid and 15 asked but sellers are happy to dump at 10? I am not talking about intent here I am talking about whether buyer or sellers are prepared to use market orders to get filled. This is only actual completed orders, real transactions. The advocates of this sort of analysis claim that this is a better gauge of buying and selling pressure (I am not saying that this is necessaries my view) The argument being that the side that is trading aggressively is likely to have a short term effect on price.

Legs are really 'swings' they are an intrinsic part of price action anywhere you can draw AB CD type patterns you have two legs. Here is a 5 minute chart see the 2 doji's? Maybe not so clear (though its not hard to learn to see things like that) Drop down to 1 minute TF and the BC move is pretty plain

Using that argument the best bet would be to study Livermore (though much less written about him, you need to be a bit of a detective) . Seriously though Rigels advice makes some sense. I

I'd just like to add a wee bit about bid and ask volume. It is possible to divide actual traded volume depending on whether it was conducted at the bid or at the ask. If it is conducted at the ask you can say it is aggressive buying and passive selling. The buyer is prepared to pay the sellers asking price with a market order. Some people find value in this information and there are a couple of threads discussing it. Probably worth starting with the basics and the Wyckoff forum is as good a place as any for that.

You could do worse than start here.

Often the legs are just separated by a small doji. Another trick is to zoom in to a 1 min chart. Sometimes the correction within the correction is only a minute or two.

Ahh a test :D Actually i think I am up to date on the lingo except some of the SMI additions creeks, boy scouts, ice flows, polar bears etc.

The comments where about this chart (posted earlier by TT) I added the green lines.

It is rather 'text book' and text books tend to be dry...you might go as far as saying hard work. I agree is not really that 'practical' a book (well it might be if you are a regulator or design exchanges). I guess if your sole interest is practical applications and strategies it won't hold much for you. I found certain sections (quite a few) pretty interesting I just re-read about liquidity and bilateral search issues again no real practical use to me but who knows one day maybe one day maybe finding liquidity will be an issue interesting none the less. I guess people see things like 'The Glosten-Harris spread estimation model' and their eyes glaze over. I though hmmm maths...Im not very good at that maybe I'll learn something here. I do think his definitions are far more useful than 'smart money' 'big boys' etc. I wonder exactly what you do mean by commercial? Size? Without a common lexicon communication becomes hit and miss at best. I'd be up for proof reading too ;-)

Ahh OK personally I try and use terms that have been adopted in emerging works on market microstructure, Harris in particular (I have not read O'Hara). He deals with who trades how and why. Different types of trader have quite different modus operandi, though of course they all leave 'footprints' across the tape. Might interest you actually if you have not read it already.

Are Neural Networks horribly out of vogue at the moment? Back in the day these biases would have been great candidates for inputs to a NN. (Though would still probably benefit from appropriate weighting before being fed in).

I presume that it is the following "Commercial and Non-commercial Traders. When an individual reportable trader is identified to the Commission, the trader is classified either as "commercial" or "non-commercial." All of a trader's reported futures positions in a commodity are classified as commercial if the trader uses futures contracts in that particular commodity for hedging as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.3(z), 17 CFR 1.3(z)" From the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) website.

I think this thread should be called Tradeguider, Value Added or Snake Oil Salesman? Actually it's debatable whether they are 'Wyckoff principles' It could be argued that they where Livermores principles. Incidentally has anyone read "Jesse Livermore's methods of trading in stocks by Richard Demille Wyckoff"?

If you have Buy & Sell signals( with very good accuracy) why do you need all the other stuff? Let us know if you find that, Id certainly buy a copy.

They are pretty compelling charts I have not had market internals on my charts for ages these make me think I should.