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.

Ricks Inn

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    9

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ricks Inn

  2. Posted

    Candlestick analysis with reference to the corresponding volume bar is what VSA is all about; traditional candlestick trading eschews any reading of volume, correct?

     

    -fs

     

    One small point, but important in Tom Williams' VSA, is that the OPEN value on any bar is not utilized (of course the OPEN defines one end of the body - if any - of a candle). Even the latest TradeGuider software rev. soft-pedals the alphanumeric display of the OPEN value.

  3. Posted

    $50 and $87.50 with two contracts? At least they were profitable. But if VSA has been transformed into a scalping strategy, it's no wonder that so many people think "why bother?" There are much easier ways to scalp.

     

    I'm guessing it's just that during a live webinar there's no other type of trade they CAN show from beginning to end. Also, it supports the contention that VSA principles apply to "all markets in all timeframes". Seems like it's true -- from this sample of one, at least. I confess that I didn't see much that was tradable at all, so their coming out of this (admittedly demo-type) situation in the black was better than I would have done!

  4. Posted

    Yes, at some point, VSA became How To Use TradeGuider. This is why I think it's more important to talk about volume spread analysis the approach than VSA the system since VSA the system is all about TradeGuider, assuming of course that one wants to learn how to trade via the principles discussed in volume spread analysis (those who want "signals" are more likely to be attracted to VSA For Dummies, i.e., TradeGuider).

     

    I discussed all this with the TG people five years ago and was impressed at the time by how little they understood the conceptual underpinnings of volume spread analysis. And now they've reached the point where volume plays such a minor role, one can hardly see it on the charts, a result I suppose of the effort to persuade potential buyers that TG can be used in any market, even those that don't provide volume at all.

     

    Just as an FYI, TradeGuider had a webinar this afternoon in which they turned all VSA indictors completely off (as well as the trend indictors for most of the time) while they traded the E-mini post-FOMC. Market was mostly ranging this afternoon, so both Gavin's live two-contract trades yielded small amounts (~$50 on one long and $87.50 on a short trade), though they were both profitable. But the principles of VSA seemed to me to work pretty well, at least to the extent that Tom and Sebastian understand them, and were explaining as they went along.

     

    I may be wrong, but I think they are planning a similar event later this month showing how volume-based analysis applies to FOREX, too.

  5. Posted

    I think Ney's books are OOP, and may be somewhat hard to find. Check on e-Bay, though. I just bought Wall Street Jungle for $0.75. Probably my best trade this week :)

     

    Isn't it in one of Ney's books that the mobster Lucciano said he got into the wrong mob after seeing market makers at work?

     

     

    Eiger

     

    Yeah, my three Ney books reside in the high-mildew section of my library (bought through the used book Amazon partners). <SmileySneezing emoticon>

     

    The Luciano story is a hoot (even if apocryphal, but I THINK true). Ney also is supposedly one of two celebrities (along with Corvair-era Ralph Nader) who was dis-invited as a guest from Johnny Carson's "Tonight" show, since they were supposedly just too dang incendiary. Thx, Eiger.

  6. Posted

     

    If I understand you, then, specialists et al implement the maneuvers that are described by Williams and Ney. But Williams as quoted by Nvesta appears to be saying that they do not exert that level of control. While one may not call this a paradox, it does seem to qualify as an inconsistency.

     

    Thanks for that, Db. Maybe the best way to think about this issue is as a continuum -- from interest-to-influence-to-manipulation-to-control. The "smart money" isn't so smart that it always wins! They battle each other (though we retail traders are much softer touches) and win some / lose some. It's not a light switch labelled "Market Control ON/OFF", and while all syndicates attempt manipulation, none (individually or collectively) have the power to fully control. IMO, at least...

  7. Posted

    Tom Williams is, of course, not the only one who's written about market manipulation as fact. Though no longer in print, all three of Richard Ney's books books document this (the first two in great detail).

     

    Tom has also pointed out that "smart money" is not monolithic, does compete among themselves, and does not consist of everyone who works in the financial sector as a career. Bank investors, retirement fund managers, retail brokers, individual financial planners at places such as HSBC and UBS --- all control very large funds, but almost invariably part of the "herd" (I've been a customer of these in years past, and my HSBC account manager disputed manipulation being a significant factor.)

     

    So there is a distinction here. Not till you get to the so-called syndicate, specialist, or market-maker level do you find the folks who have 1) the funding, and 2) the inside knowledge (e.g. where stops are placed, pending large block orders being distributed) which are needed to implement the maneuvers Tom and Richard -- and others -- speak about. I don't THINK this is a paradox; maybe unseemly, borderline illegal, winked at by the revolving door regulators --- but extant none the less.

     

    Check this for a rare main-stream-media reference to this activity:

     

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article3587090.ece (The first sentence in particular -- this usually doesn't get out, and Tom Williams has spoken of having witnessed this very behaviour within the syndicate he worked for in the 1960s.)

  9. Posted

    3 or 4 possible places to take advantage of a change in supply/demand. See chart 2 for what happened next.

     

    CW - I'm not much of a candle guy, but chart 2 has all them thar "higher-low after higher-lows" that Sebastian talks about as well. Yes it's all rear-view mirror stuff -- that doesn't make it wrong. Maybe better called "necessary but not sufficient".

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept