If anyone has read 'Markets in Profile' (2007), do you still recommend reading 'Mind over Markets'? Both by Dalton. Thanks! http://www.amazon.com/Markets-Profi...5155917?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175889252&sr=1-1
Mind over Markets is better, from what I hear. I haven't read the other book you mentioned so I can't personally comment on which is better. I read the book from Dalton only once, but I have to read it another 3 times to absorb what he's talking about. Many people made a lot of money using market profile and I plan on using that indicator as one tool to help me get a flow of how the market is acting.
The first is the required reading - the second does not really cover the nuts and bolts of MP. the second has grown on me - there is definitely space for both in the MP world and more too. I'm thinking of adding my own addition to the MP universe - will take some time though.
The first is the text book. The second is an interesting read on the subject that will give you some insights.
I think tubbs and kiwi are right. The first is a clearer and more direct explanation of the basics. The second is useful for its discussions of actual applications.
The second book is hard to read, it's like reading an economics thesis by an academic who has no real-life understanding of what economics is. This is very unlike Jim Dalton's first book, it must have been written by his son. I read though half of it and still didn't have a clue of what the author is try to say that is not already said in "Mind Over Markets". I have since given it up and letting the book sit on my shelves to collect the dust. I bought the book based on Brett Steenbarger's review form his blogger site, when I got the book, I found that Steenbarger also wrote the forward for the book, it was all the marketing plot, I completely lost my respect for Steenbarger now for his lack of integrity and honesty by promoting the book in his blogger without disclosing he has personal motives to promote this book.
I think you are stupidly attacking Steenbarger for writing a forward to a book that he regards well and then saying that he regards it well.
I think the attack is based on non-disclosure which is a fair point, especially if this guy Steenbarger (never heard of him) gets his cut of royalties.