[szubaark]

This book will be easy or hard to read depending on how much Hard Screen Time you already put in to this.
Wish it was easier also, but its now.

[will1709]

Originally Posted by mikea59 »

My first post on this forum...

This book is about to drive me crazy, there are so many inconsistencies or down right errors - I'm about to give up. For example, H1, 2, 3, 4 and L1, 2, 3, 4 definitions and examples are just not consistent throughout the book. Check out page 120, Figure 4-16. This chart shows 11 Lx's in a strong bull trend right after he explains Lx

"Likewise, a Low 1 (Ll) occurs in an down or sideways market, and a Low 2, 3, and 4 are comparable to their High 2, 3, and 4 counterparts."

Clearly the first part of that chart is in a strong bull trend, why would he even consider identifying Lx's in a strong bull trend. He does go on to say:

"Although many are labeled, when the market is clearly trending up, you should not be looking to sell most Low 1 and Low 2 setups."

By his own definition, a Lx doesn't even exist in a bull trend.

I really have the sense that price action is the way to trade. So many indicator based mechanical systems I have tried have failed. I was really hoping (based on favorable reviews) that this Brooks book would be the definitive PA book - please, someone tell me that there is a payoff for reading this entire thing, I'm not sure I can get through it without some hope.

I'm of the opinion he was merely demonstrating, as is obvious with legs, that both highs and lows exist in an uptrend but these were not necessarily to used as entries. With regard to your final comment, I believe that one cannot overstate the importance of this book. It's fair to say it's not written in the best way and perhaps this labeling of H1 L1 etc is a little ambiguous at time but for me the crux of the matter is that price action is a highly subjective subject and one must be able to express themselves as they see it to properly convey the situation (to be true to themselves). Secondly, I'm yet to complete the book but, I feel that the effort is more than worth the reward. There are such small nuances,and subtleties to price action trading that if you can look past the books short comings you will find some genuinely invaluable information. The book definitely gets better the more you read. I already notice a small polarization of perspective in the way I trade Forex in all time frames so something must be working. So, keep at it

[ACS]

Originally Posted by mikea59 »

My first post on this forum...

This book is about to drive me crazy, there are so many inconsistencies or down right errors - I'm about to give up. For example, H1, 2, 3, 4 and L1, 2, 3, 4 definitions and examples are just not consistent throughout the book. Check out page 120, Figure 4-16. This chart shows 11 Lx's in a strong bull trend right after he explains Lx

"Likewise, a Low 1 (Ll) occurs in an down or sideways market, and a Low 2, 3, and 4 are comparable to their High 2, 3, and 4 counterparts."

Clearly the first part of that chart is in a strong bull trend, why would he even consider identifying Lx's in a strong bull trend. He does go on to say:

"Although many are labeled, when the market is clearly trending up, you should not be looking to sell most Low 1 and Low 2 setups."

By his own definition, a Lx doesn't even exist in a bull trend.

I really have the sense that price action is the way to trade. So many indicator based mechanical systems I have tried have failed. I was really hoping (based on favorable reviews) that this Brooks book would be the definitive PA book - please, someone tell me that there is a payoff for reading this entire thing, I'm not sure I can get through it without some hope.

It will take several readings of the book and viewings of his lectures before details such as that start to make sense. And even without the details there are many big picture concepts that are alone worth the effort. The most obvious one is the discussion of how trends behave and terminate and when to switch from with trend to counter trend setups.

[BlowFish]

It is a worthwhile book though there are probably easier sources to get a grounding in 'price action'. Dunnigan, Joe Ross law of charts, Gann (not all his stuff was esoteric), Trader Vic (trend line breaks and 2B's) etc etc.

If you already 'know price action' it might give you an easier time of things. Also take a setup at a time and make sure you have that down. Finally a lot of the material is just observations, 'if this happens then often that happens'. Leave those until later when you have the basic framework down.

btw I agree there most certainly is inconstancies in descriptions of L1 L2 H1 H2's, I noticed that pretty much straight a way ("hang on, by definition that should only occur in a side ways or up market"). The important thing is identifying the legs and the context of those legs, the H1 L1,s are simply 'delimiters' to legs.

[dbandas]

First of all, I am very grateful to have found this book. I've been studying for several months and am doing very well with it. Some things that helped were watching the videos several times to get warmed up to the concepts and the lingo. Then, the articles. Finally, I found it essential to go to brooks price action - Home and print out charts so I could see them!

My ongoing confusion, though, is the concept of "breakout pullback." Is this simply a little pullback after a breakout? It seems, from what I read and parse something more.

Like: price is in a bullish uptrend, say at 900. It "breaks out" downward to 890. This is the breakout. This fails, and price returns to the 898-900 area. This is a failure of the breakout. It then attempt to break out again, and falls back to the 890-892 area. Is this the "breakout pullback?" Is it a pullback to the area of the orignal breakout, and a potential setup for a long if it fails? Am I making this hard and it is it just the 2nd of two attempts to breakout and thus a with trend setup?

Help! Please!

[ACS]

Originally Posted by dbandas »

My ongoing confusion, though, is the concept of "breakout pullback." Is this simply a little pullback after a breakout? It seems, from what I read and parse something more.

Like: price is in a bullish uptrend, say at 900. It "breaks out" downward to 890. This is the breakout. This fails, and price returns to the 898-900 area. This is a failure of the breakout. It then attempt to break out again, and falls back to the 890-892 area. Is this the "breakout pullback?" Is it a pullback to the area of the orignal breakout, and a potential setup for a long if it fails? Am I making this hard and it is it just the 2nd of two attempts to breakout and thus a with trend setup?

Help! Please!

When the market is trending it will try to break the trend but most attempts fail and the trend resumes; that is a pullback. Sometimes the failure stops before it makes new highs/lows in the trend and it then reverses back in the direction of the breakout. In other words the failed breakout fails and becomes a breakout pullback in the new trend. Often there will be a period of uncertainty whether it is just a pullback in the old trend or a breakout pullback in a new trend until the market tips its hand by further price action.

[dbandas]

Originally Posted by ACS »

When the market is trending it will try to break the trend but most attempts fail and the trend resumes; that is a pullback. Sometimes the failure stops before it makes new highs/lows in the trend and it then reverses back in the direction of the breakout. In other words the failed breakout fails and becomes a breakout pullback in the new trend. Often there will be a period of uncertainty whether it is just a pullback in the old trend or a breakout pullback in a new trend until the market tips its hand by further price action.

Thanks, ACS. I was complicating it a bit. The explanation in Chapter 6 is pretty clear, but the definition in the glossary is baffling. But, Al Rules!

Basically, when a breakout fails, we don't know if it's just a failure or if it's actually a breakout pullback until we see if it has just "failed" and the prevailing move resumes, or if it makes a 3rd leg in the direction of the previous breakout, then it turns out it was a breakout pullback after all.

So, it's impossible to actually name that "elbow" precisely until we see what happens, right?

Thanks for your help.

[ACS]

Originally Posted by dbandas »

Thanks, ACS. I was complicating it a bit. The explanation in Chapter 6 is pretty clear, but the definition in the glossary is baffling. But, Al Rules!

Basically, when a breakout fails, we don't know if it's just a failure or if it's actually a breakout pullback until we see if it has just "failed" and the prevailing move resumes, or if it makes a 3rd leg in the direction of the previous breakout, then it turns out it was a breakout pullback after all.

So, it's impossible to actually name that "elbow" precisely until we see what happens, right?

Thanks for your help.

That is my very basic understanding.