[DbPhoenix]

In order to avoid opening up new threads just to ask a question, and to accommodate those who have a question but don't know where to ask it, this thread is a catch-all. If we don't have the answer, we'll do our best to find it for you. (If we can't give it our best, we'll at least give it a shot.)

Looking for a short cut? Check out Time Saver: Our Most-Thanked Posts.

[cantana]

Concerning the charts at the end of the PDF “Determining the trend of the Market”.

These price bars has the “close” only, no “open” hash mark. For some reason W felt the open was not an important piece of information, or at least not important enough to record it.

So I'm thinking to myself, Why wasn't the “open” price important?
It might be that, at the time there was not the gamesmanship of gaping the opening price outside the previous days range, resulting in triggering the EOD orders at an unfavorable price. Or,

Maybe, a open price, had no importance to the overall story the market is telling?

Anyway, I know the “opening” price is significant to a modern day traders plan of action, Maybe the “open” is not so important to EOD traders?

[DbPhoenix]

Good question, sulong (I was afraid the first question might be something along the lines of "Did W wear boxers or briefs?"). And I don't want to pundit the answer because I really have no idea, and there are some awfully smart people in this neighborhood.

It may help to keep in mind that these charts were done by hand (though they may have been provided by a service). Therefore, one would include only that information that he considered to be important, as today. Ergo the open price may not have been considered to be all that important (I know the logic here is a stretch and that there may be other possible conclusions). It may also help to keep in mind that W was not about bars but about flow, or "waves" (but you knew that). He was also about energy, and balance, and he would more likely have been interested in who won the daily contest than in what the relative positions of the players were at the beginning of the contest. Whatever follow-through there might be the following day would be told by the high and the low.

All this is just conjecture, though. I'll have to chew on this some more. The answer may be embarrassingly simple.

[firewalker]

Originally Posted by OAC »

How about Gann ? Wasn't he one of their comtemporaries ? Besides his writings, his amazing trades were verified by the Ticker magazine back in 1909. I guess nothing is popular with the TL crowd here unless it has something to do with volume ?

Originally Posted by DbPhoenix »

Actually, Wyckoff seems to have thought that Gann was pretty hot stuff, which I found surprising (and I should have included Elliott). But perhaps this could be addressed in the new Wyckoff Forum rather than the VSA thread (what you quoted was posted before the new forum was created).

I thought the above was an interesting question.

Especially since so many Gann followers seem to depart from the belief that it IS possible to predict the markets. Although I can honestly say I have not studied anything Gann related in depth, it seems like some of the foundations are similar to Wyckoff (supply, demand, support, resistance, trendlines), with one extra layer, being the 'time' factor...

OAC, Perhaps a reason why so little Gann talk is to be found, is because there are 'issues' about his 'credibility' (the use of astrology for example), where I believe there weren't any about Wyckoffs.

This might be interesting, Gann interviewed by Wyckoff:
http://www.tradingfives.com/gann/wd-...rview-1909.htm

[DbPhoenix]

Since Gann may not be "Wyckoff-related", perhaps opening up a Gann thread elsewhere in the TA forum might be the way to go. Perhaps someone who's actually read one or more of his books (I haven't) might then shed some light on the subject.

[erierambler]

Originally Posted by DbPhoenix »

Good question, sulong
Ergo the open price may not have been considered to be all that important (I know the logic here is a stretch and that there may be other possible conclusions). It may also help to keep in mind that W was not about bars but about flow, or "waves" (but you knew that). He was also about energy, and balance, and he would more likely have been interested in who won the daily contest than in what the relative positions of the players were at the beginning of the contest. Whatever follow-through there might be the following day would be told by the high and the low.

All this is just conjecture, though. I'll have to chew on this some more. The answer may be embarrassingly simple.

Could the possible answer be that Wyckoff was not about intra-day trading?
erie

[DbPhoenix]

Originally Posted by erierambler »

Could the possible answer be that Wyckoff was not about intra-day trading?
erie

Actually, he was. He wrote the Day Trader's Bible, which is posted to the Introduction, as well as including a tape-reading segment to his course.

[erierambler]

Originally Posted by DbPhoenix »

Actually, he was. He wrote the Day Trader's Bible, which is posted to the Introduction, as well as including a tape-reading segment to his course.

I've never read it, just had the course , and all the graphs have no open on the daily ranges, because ( i thought ) he was teaching for the intermediate term. But one learns something new every day
erie