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)
I had posted this chart on another Wyckoff Thread on nexusfi.com (formerly BMT). In one of John Carters free videos he spoke about the Bonds and how they will determine what is next for the market. In other words, if bonds fall the market will continue it's rally and if bonds rally the market will fall. I decided to look at the chart to see if there were any indications as to what bonds may do. My initial opinion was that they were setting up to rally, but needed to break the 144 level. This was a level the Carter spoke of in his video.
I don't few this as hind sight charting, but more of looking at background, structure and current behavior to try and get an sense of what will take place. I do have the Weis wave on it, but that is it. I felt that it gave an indication of effor vs. result, but that may be incorrect.
Any opinions on bonds? Did they give any clues to the potential market direction? Is this an accumulation area, the trading range. If so, how do we know?
This is the Wyckoff discussion. If you've read chapter by chapter, you'd know what the Wyckoff method is, not the Wyckoff spinoffs.
Why not take the Wyckoff course at SMI or at GGU (Golden Gate University). Have you seen the recent Trader's Expo in New York? Take a look at GGU's Exhibit video (attached). Watch Dr. Pruden's presentation. Sign up for the online Wyckoff course and learn the real Wyckoff method.
You can see all the Expo exhibits at "http://www.moneyshow.com/eshow/new_york/traders_expo/platform/login/?scode=030710"
...What matters most is an understanding of the forces of demand and supply. It's not about schematics or "laws" or any of the other layers of complexity which have been added for you or by you. It's about a level of simplicity that is foreign to what you're wrestling with... ...And while I agree that what one calls a particular feature, like "shakeouts", is not particularly important, it is absolutely important that the trader understand exactly what buyers and sellers are trying to do so that he may know whether to go along with it or trade counter to it...
I read your last comment with great interest.. Would you be kind to elaborate on those in bold? Thanks in advance.
As far as hindsight charts go, I would disagree that they are not useful, but I've been wrong before. Is there not value in annotating a chart of what had happened to try and make a determination as to scenarios as to what could happen next?
Depends on what you’re annotating and why you’re annotating it.
If you’re backtesting a hypothesis in order to determine whether or not it’s worth forward-testing, then yes.
If you’re studying old charts in order to induce a set of principles, then maybe.
If you’re studying old charts with a set of principles already in mind in order to deduce their validity, then again maybe.
If you’re reviewing trades in order to determine how well you followed your plan, assuming that you have a thoroughly-tested and consistently-profitable trading plan, then yes.
Otherwise, annotating hindsight charts is largely a waste of time since every trading session is unique. Nobody focuses on hindsight charts per se except for vendors and poseurs.
I'm also totally confused because you said it's not about bars.
See the post I referred to at the beginning of this response.
The issue is viewing the chart in hindsight you get to see fully formed candles/bars and volume. It's a different experience waiting for them to actually develop in real time, assessing multiple time frames, and having the discipline to properly do it.
Very true. The vendors and other “Wyckoff experts” can be exceptionally good at explaining and annotating hindsight charts. But I’ve never seen any of them trade in real time. I don’t know if any of them can. And if a vendor is seeking money for his product and/or expertise and he isn’t willing to demonstrate live, real-time trading (i.e., not videos), the potential customer may as well just set his money on fire.
Part of the core of the Wyckoff analysis includes the 9 Buying and the 9 Selling tests; of which, include both bar charts with the phase analysis and point and figure charts.
For EOD trading, yes. For intraday trading, there’s just no time. Intraday trading is all about waves, i.e., waves as explained by Wyckoff in Part 2 of his course.
I agree that VSA should be separate but honestly - there is only a few Wyckoff purists in this thread. DBP wants to eliminate springs and upthrusts - the majority of recognized Wyckoff experts learned from SMI which included this material.
It’s not about purity. Who cares about purity? It’s about an internally-consistent approach which can lead to a thoroughly-tested and consistently-profitable trading plan. The latter cannot be accomplished without the former. VSA, for example, cannot be reconciled with Wyckoff because the two have entirely different underpinnings: Wyckoff is based on the continuity of price; VSA is based on bars and bar:volume pairs. Price does not move in bars. The market doesn't care about bars, much less what kind the trader uses or what their interval is, anymore than it cares about lines and patterns and indicators. Traders who don't understand that will never stop struggling until they either fail or go broke.
As for the “recognized Wyckoff experts”, there’s no reason that they can’t offer some modification or addition to Wyckoff’s own work, if they can demonstrate in real-time that it has value. I’ve never seen any of these experts trade. I don’t know if they even can. Look at Van Tharp. Can’t trade his way out of a paper bag. Not a Wyckoffian, but still . . .
As for thrusts, why not? Wyckoff mentions them frequently. As for "springs", I have no religious objection to them; they’re just silly. Not only are they unnecessary to someone who understands how to assess the balance between buying pressure and selling pressure, they will frequently prompt one to do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. “Springs” look fine in hindsight. They’re useless in real time.
Why not take the Wyckoff course at SMI or at GGU (Golden Gate University). Have you seen the recent Trader's Expo in New York? Take a look at GGU's Exhibit video (attached). Watch Dr. Pruden's presentation. Sign up for the online Wyckoff course and learn the real Wyckoff method.
Unfortunately, it’s the SMI translation, unless it’s changed dramatically. The “real” Wyckoff method is that which was written by Wyckoff. If it’s changed, then it becomes something else, like adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa.
Though some will argue that it really doesn’t matter whether W is modified or not, that it’s “all good”, I suggest that if the newcomer has taken more than a few months to understand this stuff, he took the wrong fork somewhere and he is stumbling down a blind alley, and all the courses and software and books and DVDs and whatever else are not going to help. If one wants to learn how to trade using W’s approach, then he has to do the work, which means studying W’s approach, not somebody’s translation of W’s approach. I can’t put it any plainer than that. Anyone who disagrees should ask himself two questions: (1) how long have I been fooling with this and (2) am I making a living at it? If the answer to (2) is “no”, then the third question is “Why not?"
Of course there are lots of things people can do, including reading the book on their own. That wasn't my point. Some people seemed to want to discuss 'pure' Wyckoff, and some(one?) remarked that the original material was difficult. The procedure I suggested is a well-established way to address those issues here on Big Mike's.
If no one thinks it's worth pursuing, or the interested parties feel they are beyond it, or are better served by paying for courses elsewhere, that's fine.
