As "volume" considerations in general are inconsistent/unreliable, suggest traders shouldn't be paying any attention to volume at all. I know, I know... some traders believe in "volume" just like people believe in god.... but it was only after I deleted volume from all of my charts and any consideration whatsoever that I made my $Millions.
You totally ignored my post and repeated your viewpoint. I don't think it was intentional I just think you've never built or tested a volume bar chart. I agree with you that adding volume to a typical time, tick, range or any other variable chart resolution is an added layer of distraction no one needs. Volume bar charting is identical to any other naked bar chart except that it is smoother. If I posted 5 different charts you couldn't tell which one was which without the headers.
Oh, I know LOTS about the value of "volume" studies... years ago I had developed my own. At some point in time, however, I found they no longer consistently correlated to price and were therefore unreliable. That's when I decided "volume studies are worthless". I ain't no noob... am passing along my wisdom of many years of trading. I was schooled as a scientist, so my BS meter is high-power. Take my words FWIW.... (I didn't post on this thread for you. Whether or not I should, I'm presuming you're a "volume zealot" whose mind won't be changed by anything... I posted for less experienced traders who might be duped by your confidence in "volume".) FORGET VOLUME IN ANY FORM... CONSIDERING IT WILL COST YOU MONEY!!
Look's like we're in the minority here. I've also read a ton of trading books and I found this one utterly useless... def not worth the $40. It's interesting how people will admit that it's poorly written and then say it's a great book because if you search hard enough you will ultimately discover a few gems. This irony extends into how Al Brooks tries to keep his trading "very simple" and yet can't even clearly outline his strategies. As I posted yst, if you follow his setups then you'll be trading a sh1tload of noise. Brooks talks about institutions in the beginning of his book and how it relates to price action - do you guys seriously believe that institutions give a sh!t about High or Low 1 or 2, super short-term trendlines, 5 minute candlesticks and where the bar closes, etc? Again, he comes up with strategies from completely "Random Order Flow". He should title his next book "How to Churn Your Account by Using Super Tight Stop Losses by Interpreting a 5 Minute Candlestick". Some of his entries are ridiculous too, like he will place a limit order to buy only if it gets to a higher price (as opposed to anticipating the move)... this again on a 5 minute chart of a stock. The guy is totally oblivious to institutional random order flow. He is the epitome of a human seeing patterns in randomness. Lastly, all the talks of him being a recluse is nonsense. He's been writing in that future's magazine for years. I know he holds a few seminars. It's interesting rationale for people to assume that he wrote the book so he can answer their questions at once. Does anyone know when George Soros, John Paulson or Kyle Bass will start giving trading seminars?
If you would have read my posts instead of assuming you knew what I was going to say you would have read that I am an advocate of stringent testing. A professional or even a new trader needs to make their own decisions as to what is best for them based on their own findings not based solely on what someone tells them. That includes me. The OP is seemingly successful using Brook's method currently from his own experience not blindly listening to Al. I simply offered a suggestion for him to test so he can see for himself whether it offers him a further advantage in the market or not. If your background is that of a scientist then you can fully appreciate the pain staking and precise testing that needs to take place to validate a process, procedure, system, method or chart resolution . . . or to outright disprove them. You probably have exhaustively tested volume as a separate indicator on your charts but it is obvious from your own statements that you have never tested volume bars. I'm an accuracy zealot and nothing more. I want the easiest, simplest and most accurate chart to read I possibly can. I'm constantly searching for something more accurate and consistent than I am currently using to make profit from. I'm extremely open minded when someone offers something I can test. But like building a house, the foundation HAS to be solid and wavering because if it isn't the rest of the house is at great risk. To date, I have yet to find a chart structure that is more solid than a constant volume bar chart. If you would like to offer a suggestion instead of criticism on something you haven't tested, I'm all ears.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. If a major publisher can't assign a competent editor to work with the author and present a clear accounting of his "concepts", then I don't think the concepts hold water nor do I think they warrant time and effort to try and understand/interpret/uncover them.
If you paid $40 for his book before looking on the internet . . . well enough said. Please post a link to some information on the net or elsewhere where he has presented a seminar, videos done for free don't count. I'm curious. Brooks see's algorithms in bar movement that most of us can only dream about. I appreciate his genius but would never think about trading exactly like he does. I stated that earlier that I will be testing his bar reading but in a different charting environment. Some of these conversations remind me of the bullies on the playground that used to get pissed when some kid was different and could do something they couldn't so their only response was to beat him up instead of respecting their differences and walking away. These forums are worse because now they don't have to show their faces. Wm Schamp (ProfLogic)
Book editors are idiots only concerned with putting out products they think will produce a profit. There isn't a financial editor on the planet that would take the time to smooth out Brooks' thought process and be concerned with the outcome. Hell, it took me 5 years to teach a programmer with a PhD to not only program my stuff but, more importantly, understand it. If he couldn't understand the process he could never program it. The overall concepts do hold water but as I said earlier, I want to test them in a more stable environment to verify they will be an improvement over what I am doing now or not. Unlike others, I never summarily dismiss anything that is fundamentally sound. I test it before I discard it.
I remember seeing him do seminars for Futures Mag or something... quickly googled his name and this site came up: http://www.futuresmag.com/Pages/Futures-Magazine-I-Trade-Show.aspx. This one is free and I'm unsure about the other ones but obviously there is a motive (probably gets paid by vendors and so forth). About his strategy, to trade high volume discretionary off a 5 minute chart is ridiculous. It's a churning strategy. I may be wrong but its also suspicious how you defend him after every negative post... it is what it is. You think he sees algorithms, I think he sees patterns from random order flow. If his strategy worked then it can be easily automated and he would be running a hedge fund right now instead of publishing 3 books in a 2 month span.