Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Is The Wyckoff Method or Volume Spread Analysis Legit?
All of which I agree with, which is why I encourage beginners first to study the market and learn how it works, then develop a thoroughly-tested and consistently-profitable trading plan (what the pdf mentioned above is all about) before spending a dime on books, courses, dvds, or software, much less brokers, platforms, data feeds. Whether somebody begins with Wyckoff or O'Neil or whoever is less important than following some path other than just throwing money at the market and hoping it all works out.
The market doesn't lie. Nor does it try to sell you anything. But in order to profit from it, one must understand it. And the road to understanding lies in observation and study and practice, not in finding someone to follow.
Addendum: the OP's question was "Is The Wyckoff Method or Volume Spread Analysis Legit?" I provided him with links to Wyckoff's original course as well as Wyckoff's tape reading book as well as Williams' original "book" on VSA. It's up to him whether he reads the material or not and, if so, works with it to see whether or not it has any value for him. Therefore, there's no reason for me to post any further to this thread.
Best of luck to everybody concerned.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
As always I appreciate and value your honesty, but I have to ask the following question - Does trading success not always depend on the individual trader?
For instance, the Turtles had a fixed system and yet their performance differed greatly. If everyone applied the same method, should their performance not have been in line with each other?
Also, there is plenty of evidence that CANSLIM works, yet I don't think there is any successful CANSLIM fund. I can't say how many traders quit using CANSLIM because they were not successful, but those that use it successfully all use different variations of it. For instance, I expected David Ryan to be the classical CANSLIM-trader, but he once spoke of a rule that he designed while at O'Neil & Co (not in the book) which made a lot of sense to me, but could cut profits a little short. On one podcast, William O'Neil completely dismissed that rule and mentioned he does not think it adds merit. Listening to David Ryan speak he has completely different strengths than O'Neil, but both of them know their strengths and weakness and adjust their methods for that.
Thank you for the link to the book. I have ordered it "new" although I don't quite believe it can still be that way. I have read the third edition at least 10 times and still use it as a reference.
One thing I should mention though is that the third edition has 100 of the greatest winning stocks with mark-ups as an introduction. These mark-ups show the ideal entry point, as well as exit point, and I believe they do provide some additional commentary. Of course, their is a huge survivorship bias present, but I do think there is some value in seeing how these trades could have been managed.
The question was basically should someone learn this method. My answer is no.
Should someone learn to count sand on the beach to learn how to trade ES? I would think not. Maybe someone can count sand and still make money trading ES, but reality is they are not correlated.
It would be better to spend time learning something of actual value that is related to how markets operate.
I get a lot of emails and PM's from people seeking advice. Usually they've been losing money and don't really know what to do next. But I received a particular letter recently that made me want to write this post.
What are some of the characteristics …
before you ignore the well-meant advice you have been given. Read it in its entirety, as there are quite a few different things to learn from there. Unless you are one of the extremely lucky few, you will at some point reach that crossroad. After a long period of breaking even, I reached that point, quit for a while, saved up sufficient capital, developed a much better plan / method and am seeing much better results.
I am no expert on Wyckoff, thus I may be missing other important items. Quoting Wyckoff's original course section "How a campaign is conducted Individual Chart Studies - Part I": "After we have determined the position and probable trend of the general market and have examined the action of the various groups to see which are most likely to go with and to lead the market as a whole, we must single out those individual stocks which are in the best position for our purpose; which is to operate in harmony, with the indicated trend."
If you are able to identify the leading stocks in a bull market, you can do very well with a wide variety of methods. If you are not able to identify those stocks, then even with great methods you may be struggling to break even. An oft overlooked aspect of trading is market selection, i.e. which markets / stocks to trade. This is probably the most important part of trading stocks and yet most people give very little attention to that. Trade the right instrument with the right method, you may make money. Trade the right instrument with the wrong method, or the wrong instrument with the right method and you will lose money. If you are trading stocks, having one or two of the big winners in your portfolio (unless you are overly diversified) may be enough for you to have a great year.
Is Wyckoff's method still applicable today? I don't know, but I would bet that if I used his SLA method to enter into a low volatility base of stocks having the best CANSLIM criteria (market selection), exited those trades if they did not work and held those that worked as long as possible (looking for gains in excess of 50%-100%), I would make money. If I daytrade futures using his method, then I probably won't be profitable. Will someone else be profitable? I have no clue.
If you really wish to test Wyckoff's method, you can perhaps start backtesting it or forward-testing it with a small amount of capital and draw your own conclusions.
wallo, If you think that the process of educating yourself consists of reading a broad range of materials and then forming a consilience out of the common principles, then it could be worth the time. I thought this webinar was interesting.
For example, Wyckoff's "spring" / "upthrust" is a simple stand-alone concept that is observable, repeats and lends itself to the easy creation of risk/reward based plans. Simply re-stated, the concept is: A market that is in a tight flat range will exhibit failed attempts to break out / break down. there's nothing special associated with the Wyckoff name or the larger method. A lot of respected traders trade the same phenomena. An example plan (to fade a potential break down failure) would be: buy with a stop as price is re-entering the range. risk is a tick or 2 below the breakdown attempt, target 1 is 50% of the range and should be at least equal to risk, target 2 is the top of the range, target 3 is at a symmetrical breakout price (a breakout range that equals the range of the failed breakdown). imo, the same principles can be applied to trading a megaphone pattern. These are counter-intuitive tactics, so having read about them from a broader sample of sources could lend a little psychological support.
Maybe i'm too naive but the wyckoff teachings would not relies on that? The accumulation/distribution it's not an explanation about how markest operate? Whithout that interpretation it would seem just a random up and down
