Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

lhookway

VSA: Couple of Questions

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

 

I'm trying to wrap my addled brain around VSA and I have a couple of questions that hopefully some VSA guru can answer.

 

Taken from Master the Markets p39, Effort vs Results

 

If the additional effort implied in the higher volume and wide spreads upwards had not resulted in higher prices, we can draw only one conclusion: The high volume seen must have contained more selling than buying. Supply on the opposite side of the market has been swamped by demand from new buyers and slowed or stopped the move.

 

This has me scratching my head. If the high volume contained more selling than buying then doesn't this imply that there is more supply than demand? The quote above from MTM suggests that the opposite is true and that supply has been swamped by demand. If supply is being swamped by demand then wouldn't we expect to see higher prices and a continuation of an upward move?

 

Mark-Ups and Mark-Downs

 

In MTM mention is often made of the Smart Money (i.e. the Pro's) marking prices either up or down to facilitate their nefarious purposes.

 

Just so I can get a handle on marking up and down but without getting into very detailed specifics how does the Smart Money do this?

 

Using Forex as an example if the Smart Money wanted to mark-up say EURUSD would they buy a whole bunch of EUR, gobbling up some of the EUR that other traders have previously bought but now want to sell, thereby forcing the price up?

 

Likewise if the Smart Money wanted to mark-down EURUSD would they sell a whole bunch of EUR presumably to other traders that have previously sold EUR themselves but now want to buy, thereby forcing the price down?

 

Regards,

 

Laurence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I'm knew to VSA as well, so don't expect much.

 

About your first part, the quote, I'm having a hard time visualizing it?

the higher volume and wide spreads upwards had not resulted in higher prices

 

I guess this is assuming a bar like in this picture? The quote said there is a wide spread, huge volume, but price did not move higher.

 

I'm still confused as to the question, but generally, I think the market does not like WRBs. I guess, if the market heads up on high volume, then immediately falls, there can be no other explanation other than the fact that large amounts of selling was occuring, or distribution during the up move(Buying Climax).

 

You can't see it though. Because if you plot Up/Down Volume over-layed on each other during an upmove, you will naturally see more buying than selling occuring. But immediately the market fell, so what other explanation can there be, other than we were in the distribution phase? See the other attached picture.

 

 

Do you have an example we can disect?

VSA_Explanation2Jun2009.thumb.jpg.5ca4c8e4d2701abdc61973b64ef08418.jpg

VSA_Explanation2xJun2009.thumb.jpg.d3875cd05f49ca0e8bd3c6bbcbf5aee4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Forrestang, thanks for the reply.

 

If there is a WRB that closes towards the low then the implication is that there was more supply (i.e. selling) than demand (i.e. buying) and that caused the price to fall. Your example picture of a buying climax fits the bill.

 

The quote from MTM says...

 

If the additional effort implied in the higher volume and wide spreads upwards had not resulted in higher prices, we can draw only one conclusion: The high volume seen must have contained more selling than buying. Supply on the opposite side of the market has been swamped by demand from new buyers and slowed or stopped the move.

 

The last sentence ... "Supply on the opposite side of the market has been swamped by demand from new buyers and slowed or stopped the move." ... is what has me scratching my head.

 

Shouldn't that last sentence actually say ... "Supply on the opposite side of the market has swamped demand from new buyers and slowed or stopped the move"

 

Regards,

 

Laurence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Mark-Ups and Mark-Downs

 

In MTM mention is often made of the Smart Money (i.e. the Pro's) marking prices either up or down to facilitate their nefarious purposes.

 

Just so I can get a handle on marking up and down but without getting into very detailed specifics how does the Smart Money do this?

 

Using Forex as an example if the Smart Money wanted to mark-up say EURUSD would they buy a whole bunch of EUR, gobbling up some of the EUR that other traders have previously bought but now want to sell, thereby forcing the price up?

 

Likewise if the Smart Money wanted to mark-down EURUSD would they sell a whole bunch of EUR presumably to other traders that have previously sold EUR themselves but now want to buy, thereby forcing the price down?

.

 

About Mark Up/Down. I'm a bit conflicted about this. But as i understand it(at least the way Todd Kruegar explains it), there are four phases in the market. You have Accumulation -> markup -> Distribution -> mark down.

 

But it doesn't sound like that's what you're referring to?

 

It seems like you might be talking about when someone is checking for supply or demand.

 

So say you had a Selling Climax, naturally this occurs on HEAVY volume, and an increase in the velocity of price. So price is headed down fast in furious. Now we're in the accumulation phase supposedly, where someone is accumulating supply.

 

Now, they want as much supply as possible, and they want it from the masses. They also want people to believe the market is heading lower. So they would artificially mark prices down, in an attempt to acquire more inventory at a lower price or to trap unsuspecting shorts and shakeout any longs.

 

You want price to be lower, supposedly this is seen after a selling climax, with a narrow range bar, with reduced volume, showing the lack of interest in selling at these lower prices. This "Test" bar would dip below the selling climax checking for supply, and trapping new shorts and breakout shorts.

 

Disclaimer: Again i don't know what the hell I'm talking about, just trying to learn here. :confused:

Edited by forrestang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Forrestang,

 

Now, they want as much supply as possible, and they want it from the masses. They also want people to believe the market is heading lower. So they would artificially mark prices down, in an attempt to acquire more inventory at a lower price or to trap unsuspecting shorts and shakeout any longs.

 

It is how they artificially mark prices down and conversely how they artificially mark prices up that I was enquiring about.

 

Regards,

 

Laurence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Forrestang,

 

 

 

It is how they artificially mark prices down and conversely how they artificially mark prices up that I was enquiring about.

 

Regards,

 

Laurence.

 

I don't think I meant "artificially" the way I put it, as if something was happening that really wasn't happening.

 

I'm unsure how they do it, could be temporary unloading some supply to check for the presence of sellers or to see if anyone is interested in continued selling beyond this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurence

I am not a guru.

I have studied and use both Wyckoff and VSA concepts.

 

Understand this: VSA is derived from Wyckoff.

 

In wyckoff there is nothing like

"markets do not like upbars on high vol" and "professionals lurking in the background to pounce on you". This is all hype in VSA. Context is the what matters.

 

There are some very useful setups in VSA , again based entirely on Wyckoff but presented in somewhat simpler way and that is all you require. Drop the rest, especially the urge to figure out who is moving the market, each bar in the right context reveals if there is Buying or Selling pressure. Vol is activity, on each bar selling and buying contracts are equal, what the price does tells you who is in control and that is all you need to know. Anything else is just distraction.

 

In your quote ref P39 chart 7, the explanation is confusing: The context is "Pushing through Supply", There are lots of traders who were long and are itching to get out at breakeven if price reaches the level at which they bought after a fall. To absorb this vol, the demand has to be greater than supply ie. buying pressure is in control, there are more contracts on the bid, totally forget about professionals:)))

 

If you wish to progress without getting mired into lot of VSA jargon, get hold of the latest Al Brooks Book "Reading Price Charts Bar by Bar", Preface alone will set you on the right path. and is worth the price of the book

 

Attached is a pdf : The first section of the book on "Price Action".

 

Next go to the Wyckoff forum, there is enough there to guide you further on how to read vol which is Effort and price move which is Result. You really do not need any more, no fancy software, seminars, etc period.

 

End of day, Your choice.

 

Good Luck

AL BROOKS BOOK.pdf

Edited by monad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, It looks as if the last sentence has the words supply and demand reversed, a typo. The original Williams book had quite a number of these.

 

Prices are marked down just as a store would. Essentially you lower the price you will do business at. Nothing really nefarious. If you are being pedantic marking up or down is not actively selling it is rearranging your order book i.e changing the price at or above best ask you are prepared to sell, or the price at or below the best bid you are prepared to buy. It is my hunch that when some people talk about marking up or down they include active buying or selling (market orders).

 

Some participants might mark down (or actively sell) even if they are bullish on the market. Again nothing nefarious, if you are a broker/dealer working an order for a million shares for a customer you probably don't want to hit the market all in one shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Monad, I will heed your advice.

 

Regards,

 

Laurence.

 

If you do decide to investigate the Wyckoff Forum, feel free to ask whatever questions occur to you. The subjects of buying and selling, supply and demand, volume and trend are regularly made far more difficult than they need to be, largely because the person seeking to understand is assumed to know more than he does. But if you've ever made a purchase that did not involve a take-it-or-leave-it price, the subject should not drive you batty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Blow Fish is right, that looks like a typo.

 

There was a nice example of pushing through supply over Friday and Monday in the ES. We have been discussing this on the other VSA threads. In Wyckoff terms, it's called "Jumping Across the Creek." Both talk about the same principles, just in different words.

 

Supply exists along the tops of a trading range where price has been turned down. A level of effort is often seen via spreads and volume when pushing up and through this supply. When that occurs, it is viewed as a Sign of Strength and we can anticipate higher prices. In this case, price moved into an apex (red lines) before it generated the SOS - this is referred to as a Springboad, signifying that the market is poised to make a move. To help traders understand these principles, Robert Evans, a great master of the Wyckoff Method, created the "Creek Story" about a boy scout looking to cross a creek. After trying to cross the creek at spots too wide (supply points early in the trading range), the scout pulls back, gets a running start, and jumps across. He is basically jumping across the supply points, or in VSA, "pushing through the supply."

 

Now, we are seeing a Backing Up to the Edge of the Creek -- a testing for supply. If no significant supply is found, higher prices can be anticipated. We can read this in the spreads (should be narrower) and the volume (receding) as price backs up.

 

Hope this is helpful,

 

Eiger

5aa70edecc237_JumpAcrosstheCreek6-1-09.thumb.png.3dba08300647269d89c1816feeaadcf0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome. Here is another one of Bob Evans's great Wyckoff set-ups -- a Spring. This is one of my favorites to trade. In a Spring, the market dips under support then springs back up above it. This one occurred towards the end of the day and gave a nice rallly into the close. VSA doesn't really talk about Springs, except as a sort of reverse Up Thrust. Springs are good odds trades in an uptrending environment and occur with regularity, so it's a useful trade to know.

 

Eiger

5aa70edeeae3a_SpringES5-min6-3-09.png.ddc200909aa6cd884420dc278b6c12ad.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laurence

I am not a guru.

I have studied and use both Wyckoff and VSA concepts.

 

Understand this: VSA is derived from Wyckoff.

 

In wyckoff there is nothing like

"markets do not like upbars on high vol" and "professionals lurking in the background to pounce on you". This is all hype in VSA. Context is the what matters.

 

There are some very useful setups in VSA , again based entirely on Wyckoff but presented in somewhat simpler way and that is all you require. Drop the rest, especially the urge to figure out who is moving the market, each bar in the right context reveals if there is Buying or Selling pressure. Vol is activity, on each bar selling and buying contracts are equal, what the price does tells you who is in control and that is all you need to know. Anything else is just distraction.

 

In your quote ref P39 chart 7, the explanation is confusing: The context is "Pushing through Supply", There are lots of traders who were long and are itching to get out at breakeven if price reaches the level at which they bought after a fall. To absorb this vol, the demand has to be greater than supply ie. buying pressure is in control, there are more contracts on the bid, totally forget about professionals:)))

 

If you wish to progress without getting mired into lot of VSA jargon, get hold of the latest Al Brooks Book "Reading Price Charts Bar by Bar", Preface alone will set you on the right path. and is worth the price of the book

 

Attached is a pdf : The first section of the book on "Price Action".

 

Next go to the Wyckoff forum, there is enough there to guide you further on how to read vol which is Effort and price move which is Result. You really do not need any more, no fancy software, seminars, etc period.

 

End of day, Your choice.

 

Good Luck

 

 

You has a full Al Brooks book? Will Be able its here show? Long ago want to look her. But while on the first part me she did not like on interpretation of the material. Wanted hear whole she such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

 

Taken from Master the Markets p39, Effort vs Results

 

If the additional effort implied in the higher volume and wide spreads upwards had not resulted in higher prices, we can draw only one conclusion: The high volume seen must have contained more selling than buying. Supply on the opposite side of the market has been swamped by demand from new buyers and slowed or stopped the move.

 

 

This has me scratching my head. If the high volume contained more selling than buying then doesn't this imply that there is more supply than demand? The quote above from MTM suggests that the opposite is true and that supply has been swamped by demand. If supply is being swamped by demand then wouldn't we expect to see higher prices and a continuation of an upward move?

 

Im new but here's my humble opinion : I think there's no typo:

 

you have higher volume,wide spreads UPWARDS (green) and NO HIGHER PRICES (doesnt mean lower prices). why ? cause there was selling there , supply, which then got swamp by demand caused by new buyers who stop or slow the (down) move. it means weakness, the market may go up but not very far, we should wait to see some no demand bars, then an up thrust and.............go short !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is how they artificially mark prices down and conversely how they artificially mark prices up that I was enquiring about.

 

Im not sure about how they exactly do that but think that market makers are supossed to fill orders at every price level, HOWEVER... the amount of orders they trade at every level its up to them...what would you do if you were them and wanted the price to go up??? or down ???

 

please any VSA experts out there correct me if Im wrong, I wouldnt like to missinform anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im not sure about how they exactly do that but think that market makers are supossed to fill orders at every price level, HOWEVER... the amount of orders they trade at every level its up to them...what would you do if you were them and wanted the price to go up??? or down ???

 

please any VSA experts out there correct me if Im wrong, I wouldnt like to missinform anybody.

 

Dunno about that, the only market that I can think of where the market maker (specialist) is expected to 'facilitate an orderly market' is the NYSE. Even so I don't believe that there is any requirement on them to fill orders at any particular level. In short I think you have probably been misinformed:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im not sure about how they exactly do that but think that market makers are supossed to fill orders at every price level, HOWEVER... the amount of orders they trade at every level its up to them...what would you do if you were them and wanted the price to go up??? or down ???....

 

First, we must admit that times have changed. In Wyckoff's and Tom's day, every market had market makers. Today is a different story with electronic trading. Where there were once floor traders, there are now streams of data in cyber-space.

 

With that said, the principles remain the same.

 

According to VSA bearish market makers would do this:

 

1. first we understand that they are bearish becuase they can see both sides of the market. And the market players. If they are bearish, therefore, it is because they see a large number of sell orders from the players in the know.

 

2. Price is allowed to rise slightly as the buyers (the people ultimately on the wrong side) enter the market.

 

3. The range is kept artificially narrow. The herd (buyers) thus think they are getting a good fill. In reality, however, they are buying into a "flood" of smart money selling. In other words, the presence of a lot of supply, allows the market maker to match the orders easily and keep the range small. Econ 101 would tell us that a lot of buyers (high volume) would bid the price up. What is really happening is that the buyers are buying into a lot of selling (supply). The smart money will have more supply than the herd. So ultimately price will fall on the abundance of supply in the market. But you would at some point see that narrow range up bar on high volume.........

 

This is the type of bar Bill Williams called a squat. Tom calls such a bar "end of a rising market", when it is into new territory and closes in the middle or high of the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.