Riding the Wyckoff Wave

[DbPhoenix]

Nope. I don't see the point (no pun intended).

[zeon]

	Quote:	DbPhoenix

That red line looks broken decisively.

[Tannism]

Turning Points on Light Volume (struggling market)
".....the action of the volume should tell us what it is. The buying may eventually dry up, and the selling increase, as sellers see they cannot hope to dispose of their stocks at higher prices. This may bring on an abrupt downward trend, the indications of which will be the appearance of larger blocks of stock offered at continually lower figures.

The second eventuality is that prices will roll over and sag under their own weight, without the increase of selling-pressure. ...While the demand dries up, the supply likewise remains light. We then have a sagging, dull reaction, following the tired upward movement. This may continue until a level is reached where there is a greater demand, which, in turn, will be indicated by larger blocks. These dull markets may reflect a temporary indecision of the speculative powers, who await definite news from the business world. "

Neill

This may be an example.

[gassah]

It's probably not a coincidence the TPOs from the higher range provided resistance on the DJIA. I wish I could grasp how MIDAS does it.

[gassah]

	Quote:	zeon
	That red line looks broken decisively.

I'll disagree because it's important how a trend line is broken. The low volume is not encouraging.

[gassah]

W says:

"It is bad practice to buy a stock simply because it has penetrated an established supply line or broken out of an extended congestion area; or to sell it merely because it has violated a line of support or broken through the bottom of a trading zone, and for no other reason. Do not forget: The breaking of a trend line, by itself, is neither a conclusive nor an all-inclusive symptom. The significant thing is HOW the line is broken; the conditions under which the change of stride occurs. The behavior preceding such an indication must also be taken fully into account.

In short, the quality of the buying or the selling at and around the point of penetration determines whether the violation of an established stride may be regarded as evidence of a further movement in the direction of the breakthrough, or whether it means only temporary change. This admonition applies equally to the violation of former tops and bottoms and old levels of resistance and support."

[zeon]

	Quote:	gassah
	W says: "It is bad practice to buy a stock simply because it has penetrated an established supply line or broken out of an extended congestion area; or to sell it merely because it has violated a line of support or broken through the bottom of a trading zone, and for no other reason. Do not forget: The breaking of a trend line, by itself, is neither a conclusive nor an all-inclusive symptom. The significant thing is HOW the line is broken; the conditions under which the change of stride occurs. The behavior preceding such an indication must also be taken fully into account. In short, the quality of the buying or the selling at and around the point of penetration determines whether the violation of an established stride may be regarded as evidence of a further movement in the direction of the breakthrough, or whether it means only temporary change. This admonition applies equally to the violation of former tops and bottoms and old levels of resistance and support."

Thanks gassah, most informative.

[BlowFish]

	Quote:	DbPhoenix
	Then I suggest you re-examine your approach.

If you keep doing the same things expect the same outcomes - paraphrased from someone cleverer than me.

[zeon]

	Quote:	BlowFish
	If you keep doing the same things expect the same outcomes - paraphrased from someone cleverer than me.

If that were the case, than I'd still be making profits now. I didn't just change my methods, the market must have changed, because I continued doing what I was doing last year and I was making a profit. Not big and I had a lot of losing trades, but in the end a profit is a profit.

[BlowFish]

I have been in that position before (a couple of times) I can certainly empathise.

Are you absolutely sure you are doing the same thing? The psyche can play some pretty mean tricks on us. Have you tested (back forward sideways it doesn't matter really) to establish your old method really doesn't work any more? Why? Btw was it a completely different approach or similar to what you are doing now? Could it work with some minor adjustment or do you think there is a fundamental flaw in what you where doing? The reason I ask is it may be easier to get back to where you were rather than to some place new. BTW I am not saying abandon your education in Whycoff PA volume etc. Not knowing what you where doing before I can't really comment if that would be a viable course of action.

As I said I have been there before so I am speaking about my experience when I say that it is tempting to want to change the wrong things rather than dealing with the root causes. That quote was as applicable to me as much as anyone. In the past I have probably spent tens of thousands of hours doing 'work' that, while it contributed to my trading 'education', it did nothing to advance my actual trading.