[Eiger]

Originally Posted by DbPhoenix »

Actually, you got in quite late. Long entry at double bottom off support and no supply at 11:00. Perhaps someone can put this in official VSA terms. Otherwise, it's pure Wyckoff.

Once again, you want to derail the thread. When someone posts about VSA, you want to take it to your version of the world. Just like you chided CW for his post, now you chastize me for my trading. This isn't the first time I have posted a question and you have jumped in with critical comments. I don't know what your problem is. You don't think much of VSA, yet you want to put your nose into everyone else's business and show them your way of trading. There is a pattern here.

What makes it so difficult for you to understand that this thread is about VSA? This is not about "pure Wyckoff." I've read your posts on Wyckoff, and, frankly, they are a pretty poor rendition of it. You have made numerous misstatements concerning Wyckoff. You would do yourself a favor by reviewing those with the Wyckoff text in hand. And, if you need a place to start, go to your post about the "bearish triangle" you saw on the day the market had a Spring. Wyckoff specifically cautioned traders about following patterns like triangles, head & shoulder, flags, and other chart patterns. When I posted the chart of the Spring, you posted your triangle. I was being kind to you then, and didn't say anything. But, you clearly have a poor understanding of Wyckoff.

This is the last post I am going to make regarding you and your nonesense. Jump out of your pants to make posts to try to show others how much you think you know, if you want to. I will simply ignore you. Actually, maybe the better thing to do is just to sit back and sing "Lalalalala" at your mindlessness.

[Eiger]

Originally Posted by dandxg »

I am guessing you meant long on a test bar at support? As I recall ND's are shorts only, although I am no expert, by any means. One of the methods I am tinkering with for S/R show significant R at 1377.


Dan

Yes, I did mean a Test. My mistake. I guess it might have turned into a failed test. I still don't have a good grasp on failed tests and how to use them. Back to the book, I guess.

I see a Supply Line on the daily that needed to be negotiated, so that area is resistance.

[DbPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Eiger »

Once again, you want to derail the thread. When someone posts about VSA, you want to take it to your version of the world. Just like you chided CW for his post, now you chastize me for my trading. This isn't the first time I have posted a question and you have jumped in with critical comments. I don't know what your problem is. You don't think much of VSA, yet you want to put your nose into everyone else's business and show them your way of trading. There is a pattern here.

What makes it so difficult for you to understand that this thread is about VSA? This is not about "pure Wyckoff." I've read your posts on Wyckoff, and, frankly, they are a pretty poor rendition of it. You would do yourself a favor by reviewing those with the Wyckoff text in hand. And, if you need a place to start, go to your post about the "bearish triangle" you saw on the day the market had a Spring. Wyckoff specifically cautioned traders about following patterns like triangles, head & shoulder, flags, and other chart patterns. When I posted the chart of the Spring, you posted your triangle. I was being kind to you then, and didn't say anything. But, you clearly have a poor understanding of Wyckoff.

This is the last post I am going to make regarding you and your nonesense. Jump out of your pants to make posts to try to show others how much you think you know, if you want to. I will simply ignore you. Actually, maybe the better thing to do is just to sit back and sing "Lalalalala" at your mindlessness.

First, I'm not "chastizing" you for your trading. I'm only pointing out that the correct entry was at "F". This is considerably earlier than your entry, which you felt was "too early".

Second, I don't recall ever using the term "bearish triangle". Perhaps you could provide a link to the post. Or you may be referring to your own use of the term. As for Wyckoff counseling against patterns, he incorporated hinges and springboards as an important part of his analysis. A hinge is a triangle only if you don't understand what a hinge is.

Second, the "spring" does not come from Wyckoff. It comes from SMI.

Third, if the thread is not to tolerate mention of Wyckoff, either, then you are essentially barring that which VSA is based on.

Fourth, as I mentioned to zdo, given that I was invited to participate in the Best of Wyckoff conference this fall along with Pruden, Raschke, Weis, and Fullett, someone is of the opinion that I have at least a feeble grasp of the subject.

If James wants to make you a moderator and give you the authority to determine what is or is not posted on this thread, that's his prerogative. Otherwise, I suggest that you put me on Ignore.

[DbPhoenix]

Originally Posted by DbPhoenix »

I'm only pointing out that the correct entry was at "F". This is considerably earlier than your entry, which you felt was "too early".

For those who are interested but afraid to ask, see chart #12 in Chapter Two of Undeclared Secrets.

Have a nice evening.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by dandxg »

As I recall ND's are shorts only, although I am no expert, by any means.

Dan-
Actually a No Demand bar as defined by VSA is an UP bar with less volume than either of the previous two bars. It MUST be an up bar.

Sledge

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Eiger »

Here is a failed trade. I'm not sure why it didn't work?

I went long at M on a No Demand bar at pretty good support.

Eiger-
Chart on Post #812
Ok are you talking about the 10th bar in from right? If that is the bar I think is "M" I see a TEST that closes in the middle of the bar- which IS an indication of higher prices to come, and yes I would have gone long as well.

Sledge

[dandxg]

Originally Posted by Sledge »

Dan-
Actually a No Demand bar as defined by VSA is an UP bar with less volume than either of the previous two bars. It MUST be an up bar.

Sledge

Right understood. I just meant you would not go long on a no demand referring to Eiger's previous post, a simple miscommunication.

[Sledge]

Dan-
Heh, it appears you had it cleared up and I threw more miscommunication in the mix.
Sledge