JossBeaumont

Hey, Thanks for your answer and the link. I am half throuhg it and it is very interresting. Here is also a link to a Peter Steidelmayer's conference at the CME group. I think your right about the context, etc... but I still can't help wondering why this book is so highly regarded with such incoherences... Maybe I'll understand one day. If someone can help, I'll appreciate.

Hi everybody, I am writing this post out of frustration. I am reading Mind over Market for the 2nd time and I just can't understand some relations between the Day types and Open types. For example, a Normal day is primarily characterized by a wide initial balance caused by the swift entry of other timeframes participants. Then in the open types chapter, the author defines an "Open-Auction" as the least convictionnal open type, and says that it generally leads to...Normal Days!! Well I've tried to read and re-read those definitions, put those definitions into an excel spreadsheet in order to try to see it clearer, but it seems that it just doesn't make any sense. And it's not the only problematic point, in fact almost every time Dalton make a relation between Day types and Open types it seems either obscure or incoherent: - Open-Drive and Open-Test-Drive lead to Trend or Normal Variations days: "A Normal Variation of a Normal day is characterized by market activity early in the trading session that is less dynamic than that of a Normal day". So how can it be that these 2 opens lead to Normal Variation days but not to Normal days?? - Open-Rejection-Reverse lead to Normal or Normal Variations days: leave alone the fact that there is almost no difference between a Open-test-drive and an Open-rejection-reverse (the author seems to miss completely that these opens as he describes them are almost exactly the same). But again why Normal days?? Aren't they suppose to be characterized by a very convictionnal opening, pushing strongly the market in one direction? I really feel frustrated because I like the author approach and I feel like this book is full of very valuable informations. I do understand that these are concepts difficult to grasp, not carved in stone. and I am OK to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, but only if the pieces of puzzle fit at some point ! Do you have any coherent explanation about these points? Thanks in advance !