Price is returning to the mean of its trend, or at least in that direction: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showpost.php?p=3948599&postcount=340
Being its the weekend I can afford a modicum of attitude This sentence/ line of thinking is bullshit ================= For the record; I rescinded my offer to break the chart / move down for FP Call it gut instinct RN
I was looking forward to your take RN, but I appreciate you saying that you rescind your offer. Just so that I don't misinterpret anything, I am hoping that with you saying you're doing it for gut instinct reasons, I hope it wasn't anything that I said in my replies. If I am reading between the lines properly, I assume that you do feel that there is lots of information contained within the spike down to help make a trading decision, and since I thought so too, it was why I posed the question.
It's simple. There was no liquidity in that area. Why is there no liquidity there? Now that is the question.
I'm trying to get my head right and understand what the danger of the concept of "smart money" is? Wyckoff spoke of the "composite operator" which to my mind seems like the same concept. Am I missing something?
There is no particular "danger" per se; it's just that there is no such thing. Wyckoff's "composite operator" is simply an amalgam of every market participant, from the kid posting out of his parent's basement to a Goldman Sachs star player. If there were such a thing as "smart" money, then it would not underperform as regularly as it does. "Big" money is something else. Yes, if one has enough money one can move a stock. This is what the Accumulation/Distribution cycle is all about. And if one understands Auction Market Theory, it's not difficult to follow this money and trade alongside, or at least tag along at a close distance. That's what led, for example, to my anticipating these levels in the ES and the NQ months ago. But the idea that all the big firms get together on some sort of conference call and plot out their strategies together is ludicrous.
Agreed. I'm not a VSA guy and don't how they use the SM term but I clearly should use big instead. Thanks as always.
Actually it's a rather long story, stretching back through VSA to Tom Williams and his "Undeclared Secrets" to the SMI course he took which came from Robert Evans with additional influences from Richard Ney. But this is of interest only to market history geeks. Thinking of the money as "big" is sufficient. And being careful not to fight it.