[VSA] Volume Spread Analysis Part II

[Sledge 13]

Sledge, we're trading in contracts so if you buy 2 then you just sell 1 and your other is left on the table. Do you trade multiple lots? You would have to in order to take 1/2 off.

 

I generally trade 2.00 lots, but the 2.00 lots are purchased at the same time under one order. Hopefully, that makes sense.

 

So in your scenario say I saw a long opportunity at 1.9700, in order to "take 1/2 of my position off the table" I would have to have the foresight to place 2 seperate orders at 1.00 lot X 2 = 2.00 lots at 1.9700, when I was happy with my profit, I could close one out and let the other "ride"- I'm pretty sure I'd wuss out though and still move my stop up on the 1.00 remaining lot

[Sledge 13]

Professional Support Question:

 

We know that higher highs, as well as, the lows do not dip below the low of the previous bars- on an upward trending market means that the Professionals are Supporting the move.

 

Is their such a thing as Professional Support on a DOWN move?

Most logical thing I can think is lower lows and the Tops of the bars do not exceed the highs of the previous bars.

 

Re-reading "MTM" section on Professional Support (PG 94) and am unclear if their is such a thing as Professional Support on a Downward move?

 

Usually markets fall because of LACK of support (on an upward move.) Anyone know?

 

Ok, after further reading (and yes this is my 5th trip through MTM) I found the answer to my own question. Hoping the post will help others if they may have not known or may have forgotten as I did!

 

PG 114 of Master the Markets (Checklist for Going Short)

"Is the market falling on NO SUPPORT. The low of each day (or bar) should be lower than the previous day (or bar.) This is a sign of weakness (the market is NOT being supported because there is no professional interest in the upside)"

 

So to summarize Support:

Upward Trend- Professional $ IS Supporting the move.

Downward Trend- Professional $ IS NOT Supporting the price.

 

Sledge

[Eiger 10]

Question on "Taking 1/2 off"

 

I have heard lots of folks say that they close out of half of their position. I have never been able to do this (at least on my platform.) Or is this something along the lines of- when you see an entry opportunity you place 2 seperate orders, closing one when you see fit and letting the other ride?

 

OR

 

Is this moving your S/L to half of your gain and letting it ride- knowing full well it may continue upward or downward depending on your order type? Moving my S/L up is the only way I have been able to accomplish this task unless I bought two seperate lots at the same entry.

Sledge

 

Hey Sledge, You would start with a minimum "unit size" of two contracts, but you can do it with any multiple of 2 (e.g., 4 contracts, 6, 8, etc). You would normally put everything on at once, but you can also scale in. So, assuming you put on 2 contracts, you could take 1 contract off to book profits at some predetermined level. You can take 1/2 off in different ways. For example, a fixed number of points (say 1.0 or 2.0 points in the ES), or, what I typically do is at a level just under a small resistance area that I anticipate the market running to and stopping or pausing at. I usually put a limit order in to take the first 1/2 off just after I set my stop.

 

If i am filled on the first half, I typically bring my stop up tighter, if I can. But I am also trying to keep my stop protected under/over some type of support/resistance, so there may or may not be an opportunity to move the stop right away. If the trade works, i am either taking the second 1/2 off at a more important resitance area (usually), or letting it run and trailing a stop (not too often, unless I can recognize a trend day).

 

Originally, I got this idea from Joe Ross. He wrote a book called Trading is a Business where he described this. It was written back in the day when commissions were higher than today, so he actually recommended a unit size of three contracts. He would take one contract off as soon as he saw profit in order to pay for commissions and other overhead costs. If I remember correctly, he brought his stop up to break even immediately after taking the first contract off. So, now he was in a free trade. Then, he had a fixed level where he took the second contract off, to always insure some modest level of profit. He then let the third contract run with a trailing stop.

 

I have been using his idea for a while and it has served me pretty well. I like being able to book profits when I can and then playing for a higher level with a good entry when I am able to get one.

[Sledge 13]

Eiger-

Thank you for the in-depth description. I'll visit Joes message board from time to time, just to get a no nonsense explination of a topic (darn near everything you can imagine has been covered on his board at one point)- talk about a straight-shooter. That guy will tell you flat out, no punches pulled whatever you want to know.

Sledge

[Eiger 10]

Yeah, i think he is one of the good guys

[Eiger 10]

At the time, I didn't know if the top had been put in at Friday's high (G). Frankly, I thought that we might pause at this level, and then go higher and try for the top at 1391.75. So, I completely missed the UpThrust at H. I usually like those, especially when the volume increases like this after the weakness at G.

 

Another opportunity came at I, which I did manage to take. This was probably a safer trade because of the resistances formed by the Supply line and the horizontal resistance off E. Again, volume increased to the downside and indicated the support below E wouldn't hold

[jjthetrader 10]

Just a little point I want to make today. This issue tripped me up for the longest time. Tawe Trader was a big help is distinguishing between acceptable breakout volume vs what might be potential hidden selling. Not all ultra high volume bars are weak regardless of what Gavin at tradeguider tells you!

 

Here's an illustration.

 

BAR A: This would be classified as ultra high volume. It broke up through a previous high from 3 bars earlier that also had relatively high volume but was tested and no selling appeared (the no supply bar 1 bar previous to A). So we've got to ask ourselves, did this bar contain selling? Normally a bar like this will be tested right away. What do we get? An unthrust 2 bars later. This is giving us an indication that the market isn't as strong as we may think. Now in the circled blue area we just move sideways. This is not common to testing, it is common to distribution. We know the market is weak.

 

BAR B: We break out of that range we were just in but knwing what we know about there being weakness in the background are we going to go long here? No! Wait for your signal because your short is setting up.

 

BAR C: This is the upthrust Eiger was refering to. We know it's an upthrust more than just it's shape but that it has that high volume and nothing to the left for a long while which would cause this. I personally took a quick short on the break of it's low.

 

That's my quick synopsis of 'when is an upthrust an upthrust and when is ultra high volume bearish'. Like I said, this used to trip me up so just in case it may help someone I thought I'd post it.

[habi 10]

The market did not rocket through this supply area, so it can either react or absorb at resistance. Wyckoff first described absorption in the 1931 market. He did this in hindsight, but I think it is a worthwhile analysis nonetheless, and I hope you do, too In my own work, I have taken his brilliant 1931 case study and reformatted it so that each section of his analysis can be read and studied without the influence of subsequent action. And, for my personal use, I have added some of my own observations. I’d like to share with you the page of that analysis that discusses absorption, which you might find helpful at this moment in the market. The 1931 market rallied after this point in the analysis.

 

Hi Eiger

 

At the point where we are now, I see more reaction to the high area 1/31, 3/2 than some kind of absorption. We have longer upper shadows in the daly chart instead of rejections from the downside, and now 5 closes within few points. Just above 1400 is another congestion area with more resistance potential.

 

The small channel in the 60min chart is now broken to the downside, I like such patterns more against the main trend. It will be interesting, if 1360 will hold again.

 

Instead of a daly chart I use a 1425min chart with a full session time template, since eSignal has a one day delay in the daly fututes volume charts. Therefore the January lows looks a bit different to a normal daly chart.

[DbPhoenix 42]

At the point where we are now, I see more reaction to the high area 1/31, 3/2 than some kind of absorption. We have longer upper shadows in the daly chart instead of rejections from the downside, and now 5 closes within few points. Just above 1400 is another congestion area with more resistance potential.

 

The small channel in the 60min chart is now broken to the downside, I like such patterns more against the main trend. It will be interesting, if 1360 will hold again.

 

Instead of a daly chart I use a 1425min chart with a full session time template, since eSignal has a one day delay in the daly fututes volume charts. Therefore the January lows looks a bit different to a normal daly chart.

 

 

 

You may be interested in the context here. The first chart is Wyckoff's, from Dec '30 thru March '31 ("s" signifies Saturday). The second shows the entire year '30, up to and including Dec to show where price was coming from prior to the left edge of W's chart.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

[Eiger 10]

Hi Eiger

 

At the point where we are now, I see more reaction to the high area 1/31, 3/2 than some kind of absorption. We have longer upper shadows in the daly chart instead of rejections from the downside, and now 5 closes within few points. Just above 1400 is another congestion area with more resistance potential.

 

The small channel in the 60min chart is now broken to the downside, I like such patterns more against the main trend. It will be interesting, if 1360 will hold again.

 

Instead of a daly chart I use a 1425min chart with a full session time template, since eSignal has a one day delay in the daly fututes volume charts. Therefore the January lows looks a bit different to a normal daly chart.

 

Hey Habi,

 

E-Signal can be really frustrating when it comes to futures volume. I hadn't thought of that trick you mention. That's clever. Thanks, I'll give that a try

 

I always like to use the SPX with the NYSE volume. Sometimes it tells a slightly different story than ES or SPY. I learned this from SMI. They use it in their Wyckoff Wave and the other indicies.

 

Here's a chart that gives a larger perspective. You can see that there is a confluence of resistances that price is attempting to negotiate here. You would think that the market would be repelled with so much resistance. Instead, it is hanging just at the resistance area and not reacting much. So to me, the odds favor aborption. You are right, though, there is more resistance to contend with overhead.

 

Thanks again for the tip.

 

Eiger

[gassah 10]

 

You would think that the market would be repelled with so much resistance. Instead, it is hanging just at the resistance area and not reacting much. So to me, the odds favor absorption. Eiger

 

Hi Eiger,

 

When you reference absorption from the Wyckoff course are you referring to the following passage and chart?

 

The probability that this lateral movement, or trading range, between 156-151 is an area of absorption rather than one of distribution may be determined:

 

(1) from the fact that volume remains low on the reaction to January 29th and tapers off promptly on the reaction to February 2nd;

 

(2) from the tendency of the price movement to narrow into a comparatively small range instead of reacting as much as halfway back to the January 19th low, which implies that stocks are not being pressed on the market; and

 

(3) from the fact that after the recession to February 2nd, volume tends to build up consistently at the same time that there is a lifting of the supporting points from February 5th to 7th - behavior typical of the completion of a period of accumulation or absorption prior to a mark-up.

 

What's happening in the SP500 doesn't seem comparable to the above because there aren't enough bars yet, not to say that it won't head higher.

 

nic

[zeon 10]

Their is one and only one video on YouTube of Tom Williams speaking at some type of seminar or meeting (doesn't give the location) I think it is somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes. It will give you his thoughts on this topic. Go there and search "Tom Williams Market Manipulation"

 

He also is very blunt about the fact in almost any of the speeches, lectures or seminars he speaks on regarding this.

 

...

 

Sledge, it doesn't seem a good idea to discuss this topic in this thread. Whether there is market manipulation going on or not, it's a off-topic to say the least. It would make up for an interesting discussion and perhaps we should start a separate thread on this matter. I agree that to a certain extent professional money manages to influence the market more than others because by nature they have more size to play with. But even the originators of the Dow Theory said that manipulation on a major scale cannot be done.

 

As for what Tom Williams said, I'm quite critical about other people's opinions when they don't back them up with any concrete facts. And as far as your description of what happens around news releases is concerned, that's all fine and correct, but it by no means would be logical to conclude that the smart money is staging all this. By nature a lot of people will be trying to trade around the news, but it's my belief that the smart money will trade after the news, not before.

[BlowFish 10]

Hi Eiger,

 

_snip_

 

The probability that this lateral movement, or trading range, between 156-151 is an area of absorption rather than one of distribution may be determined:

 

_snip_

 

nic

 

4) Notice the advances within the range are on steady increasing volume and the declines are on diminishing volume.

 

 

I know Sebastian uses a similar concept. He kind of 'scores' bar by bar and simply allocates it as strong or weak.

[DbPhoenix 42]

4) Notice the advances within the range are on steady increasing volume and the declines are on diminishing volume.

 

 

I know Sebastian uses a similar concept. He kind of 'scores' bar by bar and simply allocates it as strong or weak.

 

Which illustrates the difference between viewing price movement as a series of buying and selling waves v a series of "bars".

 

But that's what happens when one tries to make mechanical what is unavoidably non-mechanical, i.e., Wyckoff.

[DbPhoenix 42]

Sledge, it doesn't seem a good idea to discuss this topic in this thread. Whether there is market manipulation going on or not, it's a off-topic to say the least. It would make up for an interesting discussion and perhaps we should start a separate thread on this matter.

 

It's hardly off-topic. In fact, it appears to have become a central axiom of VSA. Which, I suspect, is a chief reason why so many people have so much trouble "interpreting" their charts.

[Sledge 13]

Sledge, it doesn't seem a good idea to discuss this topic in this thread. Whether there is market manipulation going on or not, it's a off-topic to say the least. It would make up for an interesting discussion and perhaps we should start a separate thread on this matter. I agree that to a certain extent professional money manages to influence the market more than others because by nature they have more size to play with. But even the originators of the Dow Theory said that manipulation on a major scale cannot be done.

 

As for what Tom Williams said, I'm quite critical about other people's opinions when they don't back them up with any concrete facts. And as far as your description of what happens around news releases is concerned, that's all fine and correct, but it by no means would be logical to conclude that the smart money is staging all this. By nature a lot of people will be trying to trade around the news, but it's my belief that the smart money will trade after the news, not before.

 

Zeon-

As Tom Williams is the originator of VSA, and this is a VSA thread, it is perfectly logical to discuss this here! It is part of what he teaches. He didn't title his book "The Master Bar Chart Guru"

 

The thread doesn't have to be "charts only" The information I told you is also relevant to show the "Tricks" of the Market Makers- and will tell you HOW THE BARS FORM.

 

I think you are a little off base to be so focused on just the bars- don't you want to know HOW or WHY those bars form so that you can UNDERSTAND why the market moves the way it does? Otherwise, you are blindly looking at a bar without logic or following patterns. You have got to see the whole picture- not just a bar!

 

If you think all of what he said on the video, and the common theme running through is book is bull***t, that is fine. If you choose to ignore it, there is nothing I can say to sway you.

 

Sledge

[DbPhoenix 42]

 

The thread doesn't have to be "charts only" The information I told you is also relevant to show the "Tricks" of the Market Makers- and will tell you HOW THE BARS FORM.

 

I think you are a little off base to be so focused on just the bars- don't you want to know HOW or WHY those bars form so that you can UNDERSTAND why the market moves the way it does? Otherwise, you are blindly looking at a bar without logic or following patterns. You have got to see the whole picture- not just a bar!

 

I asked earlier for further information on where the trendline you drew on your GBP chart came from, but you must have overlooked it. Even so, are you suggesting that every swing point in the chart going back, oh, say, to last November is the result of "market maker" manipulation?

[zeon 10]

Zeon-

As Tom Williams is the originator of VSA, and this is a VSA thread, it is perfectly logical to discuss this here! It is part of what he teaches. He didn't title his book "The Master Bar Chart Guru"

 

Well in that case..

 

I think you are a little off base to be so focused on just the bars- don't you want to know HOW or WHY those bars form so that you can UNDERSTAND why the market moves the way it does? Otherwise, you are blindly looking at a bar without logic or following patterns. You have got to see the whole picture- not just a bar!

 

The HOW or WHY for me is simple. If price goes up there's more buying pressure than selling pressure and vice versa. I don't believe it's necessary to know who's exactly creating spikes, swing points, new highs, new lows,... Because if you understand the forces that created the pattern, you can understand the traders' behaviour. If the market fails to break resistance, than for me it's because there's not enough strength, meaning there aren't enough traders interested in buying price at this level at this point in time. If there were, price would rise. If professional money is behind this in an all grand scheme to trick traders into a position, then why does some professional money actually fails to profit over time? Look at all the hedge funds that have lost a lot of money?

 

If you think all of what he said on the video, and the common theme running through is book is bull***t, that is fine. If you choose to ignore it, there is nothing I can say to sway you.

 

Sledge

 

No, sorry... I didn't mean to insult anyone by saying this or that is rubbish. It's not. I don't believe the book is bullshit. I'm not trying to persuade anyone (not that I could) into following my path of thinking, I just think it won't do a trader any good when he has the feeling he needs to fight against the big boys who are manipulating the market and trying to steal money away from him. How about the big boys stealing money away from eachother?

[Sledge 13]

I asked earlier for further information on where the trendline you drew on your GBP chart came from, but you must have overlooked it. Even so, are you suggesting that every swing point in the chart going back, oh, say, to last November is the result of "market maker" manipulation?

 

I did miss your question. Not sure what you mean about where the trendline came from. I drew it from point A to point B- not really that hard.

 

And no I'm not (Nor is Tom) saying EVERY move is manipulated, but I am saying that if their is an opportunity for a Market Maker to fool unsuspecting traders into a bad position- they'll do it. Not trying to be an arse- but it is quite apparent that neither you nor Zeon have read Master the Markets, listened to Tom Williams speak, or watched a TG webinar. He is pretty clear about it. Being a former syndicate trader- and having the inside insight he has, and has KINDLY shared it with the world- I have great respect for him. There are THOUSANDS of books out there written by Pit Traders, Market Makers blah blah blah- not one I have found actually has the balls to tell you what Tom Williams does- they just want to sell books, they never tell you that a Market Maker will mark a market up, they never tell you the truth- they dangle the carrot over your face and after reading 400 pages, they never get to the "good stuff."

 

It is not strictly a chart reading book only, it doesn't rely on Flags, Engulfing Candles, Triangles, Dots, Waves, or any other hocus pocus. Before I started trading VSA, I experimented with every "lagging indicator" out there, I tried Pivot Points, I tried all sorts of crap. Until I stumbled upon VSA. I literally wrote in my trade journal "The Day it all Changed" Now- My platform consists of a Bar Chart and Volume- with appropriate trend lines drawn- That's It.

 

If either of you want to challenge what Tom says- read the book and then decide for yourself so that you can come here and discuss it with the same understanding. If you decide it isn't for you- then fine. Once again, if VSA isn't your thing- I could give a crap, but we ARE in a VSA thread, Once again instead of trying to really understand what VSA is about- you want to come here and pick apart what many people have had success learning and it has changed a lot of traders lives. We don't need a devil's advocate here. This is how we trade, this is what we are trying to learn.

 

I actually feel sorry for you that you think spreading doubt about anyone elses idea of how to trade, other than your own, is what you spend your life doing.

Arrogance invites ruin; humility receives benefits.

--Chinese proverb

[Sledge 13]

Look at all the hedge funds that have lost a lot of money?

 

Tom Classifies Fund Managers as part of the herd. Banks are part of the herd. Joe Average is part of the herd. In Master the Markets, he states that in a recent study- most fund managers have difficulty outperforming the market unless it is a raging bull market.

 

You have to read the book to understand- without it, I'm trying to repeat hundreds of pages for you instead of just picking the book up and studying it yourself.

Sledge

[DbPhoenix 42]

I did miss your question. Not sure what you mean about where the trendline came from. I drew it from point A to point B- not really that hard.

 

And no I'm not (Nor is Tom) saying EVERY move is manipulated, but I am saying that if their is an opportunity for a Market Maker to fool unsuspecting traders into a bad position- they'll do it. Not trying to be an arse- but it is quite apparent that neither you nor Zeon have read Master the Markets, listened to Tom Williams speak, or watched a TG webinar. He is pretty clear about it. Being a former syndicate trader- and having the inside insight he has, and has KINDLY shared it with the world- I have great respect for him. There are THOUSANDS of books out there written by Pit Traders, Market Makers blah blah blah- not one I have found actually has the balls to tell you what Tom Williams does- they just want to sell books, they never tell you that a Market Maker will mark a market up, they never tell you the truth- they dangle the carrot over your face and after reading 400 pages, they never get to the "good stuff."

 

It is not strictly a chart reading book only, it doesn't rely on Flags, Engulfing Candles, Triangles, Dots, Waves, or any other hocus pocus. Before I started trading VSA, I experimented with every "lagging indicator" out there, I tried Pivot Points, I tried all sorts of crap. Until I stumbled upon VSA. I literally wrote in my trade journal "The Day it all Changed" Now- My platform consists of a Bar Chart and Volume- with appropriate trend lines drawn- That's It.

 

If either of you want to challenge what Tom says- read the book and then decide for yourself so that you can come here and discuss it with the same understanding. If you decide it isn't for you- then fine. Once again, if VSA isn't your thing- I could give a crap, but we ARE in a VSA thread, Once again instead of trying to really understand what VSA is about- you want to come here and pick apart what many people have had success learning and it has changed a lot of traders lives. We don't need a devil's advocate here. This is how we trade, this is what we are trying to learn.

 

I actually feel sorry for you that you think spreading doubt about anyone elses idea of how to trade, other than your own, is what you spend your life doing.

Arrogance invites ruin; humility receives benefits.

--Chinese proverb

 

As for the trendline, I was wondering where Point A came from, which is why I asked for a broader context. If you're referring to an ordinary GBP/USD chart, your trendline should be up, not down. But perhaps you're referring to something else.

 

As for MTM, I've read that several times as well as US. And I'm not attacking you or Tom Williams. I'm merely curious about how the logic of this works for someone who is not Tom Williams. Since you are such a strong advocate of this view, it is only reasonable that one would look to you to trace this logic. If it all makes sense, then asking how it makes sense for an ordinary retail trader should not be viewed as an unreasonable request.

[zeon 10]

Tom Classifies Fund Managers as part of the herd. Banks are part of the herd. Joe Average is part of the herd. In Master the Markets, he states that in a recent study- most fund managers have difficulty outperforming the market unless it is a raging bull market.

 

You have to read the book to understand- without it, I'm trying to repeat hundreds of pages for you instead of just picking the book up and studying it yourself.

Sledge

 

I've actually read MTM as well as The Undeclared Secrets original edition. But it's been a while. If everybody is the herd, than who's the 'professional money'. Besides, I disagree with the fact that professional money has to be 'smart money' per se. For example, when a selling climax takes place, we all assume that's where the professionals are buying and supporting the market. But sometimes the market plunges a lot further. So did the supposedly 'smart money' make a profit on those trades? Not likely.

 

It's not because I have read and studied a book that I agree with everything that's written in it. You mention my name and dbphoenix together in one sentence, but I have no idea what his stance on this matter is, and he's not responsible for the way I think about market manipulation. I've come to this conclusion by reading other things, and by studying how the market reacts before, around news and after news.

 

I'm not saying there never is market manipulation, on the contrary. Insiders who know someting about the stock of a company will dump it long before the public does, but is this considered manipulation? Not by my definition. I'm just saying that I don't believe market manipulation revolves around 'being in the know' or having access to 'secret information'.

[Eiger 10]

Hi Eiger,

 

When you reference absorption from the Wyckoff course are you referring to the following passage and chart?

 

The probability that this lateral movement, or trading range, between 156-151 is an area of absorption rather than one of distribution may be determined:

 

(1) from the fact that volume remains low on the reaction to January 29th and tapers off promptly on the reaction to February 2nd;

 

(2) from the tendency of the price movement to narrow into a comparatively small range instead of reacting as much as halfway back to the January 19th low, which implies that stocks are not being pressed on the market; and

 

(3) from the fact that after the recession to February 2nd, volume tends to build up consistently at the same time that there is a lifting of the supporting points from February 5th to 7th - behavior typical of the completion of a period of accumulation or absorption prior to a mark-up.

 

What's happening in the SP500 doesn't seem comparable to the above because there aren't enough bars yet, not to say that it won't head higher.

 

nic

 

 

Hi Nic,

 

Yes, I was referring to the Wyckoff text. I have never read absorption as needing a certain number of days, or even necessarily a long string of days. In the 1931 market Wyckoff described, there were 13 or 14 days of absorption trying to negotiate supply in a major downtrend. I don't know if this current market is comparable to 1931, as we are not in quite the same magnitude of downtrend (yet, anyway, and let's hope it doesn't take on those proportions ). That being said, there is certainly a lot of resistance to negotiate in the current market. In addition to the more recent areas I outlined on the SPX chart, we should add the resistance formed by the early to mid-March 2007 lows and the mid-August 2007 low.

 

So, although it currently appears (to me) like absorption is trying to take place, you are probably right, it is premature to say this. I’ll step back further and simply consider it a possibility, and maybe not even a very strong one unless and until we see further evidence more in line with the text. If you are interpreting the market more bearishly, yesterday's small upthrust of the recent trading range might lead to something bigger. I am thinking that how we react from here will be important. A reaction in line with (1) of the portion of the text you posted would add weight to absorption; a wider spread and pick-up in volume on the reaction, especially if it breaks into the March 24 high, would not be very constructive for the market.

 

Thanks for the post. What are your thoughts?

 

Eiger

[zeon 10]

Hi Nic,

 

So, although it currently appears (to me) like absorption is trying to take place, you are probably right, it is premature to say this.

 

Eiger

 

A question here, how would a trader see the difference between absorption and distribution? Both take place against resistance and both lead to price staying put right?

[Sledge 13]

Since you are such a strong advocate of this view, it is only reasonable that one would look to you to trace this logic. If it all makes sense, then asking how it makes sense for an ordinary retail trader should not be viewed as an unreasonable request.

 

All I can say is this:

1. I study the book.

2. I consume any information on VSA I can.

3. I have yet to find anything I have been told in 1 or 2 above to be false.

4. My results speak for themselves because I follow what I have learned.

5. I am happy at the results I have gained from being a student of VSA

 

I'm not here to be some champion of VSA- I agree with it and adhere to it. It has served me well. Other than that, I don't feel I have to justify anything else.

 

Sledge