Quite. But I nevertheless enjoy it as it should be enjoyed. I'm up to page 135, this thread requires slower reading than usual.
Why is the obvious not so obvious? Because the market throws sufficient curveballs, whipsaws and slaloms enough to fool traders that what is really happening, isn't.
This thread looks promising, I'll have to go back to read it all. In the meantime, in answer to the question: Why is the obvious not so obvious? I think it really comes down to being unsure of what really works, and what doesn't. Many traders think they are sure only to find out the hard way that they were wrong, or they project their expectations onto what they see, and so miss what really works. I think many keep looking for more complex solutions and in doing so look right past the elementary strategies that are often the best. My first real breakthrough in trading came in applying backtesting across many stocks to generate enough trades to identify truly robust strategies and to do so without too much data mining. This is significant, now I was able to trade a strategy that worked at least at one point in time. This is a step ahead of many who try to make money with strategies that never worked (they have no edge). This also gave me the confidence to stick with my strategies at least for the most part. I still occasionally deviate but more often then not it's a mistake. My second real breakthrough came in identifying some of the many differences between a backtest and real life trading in changing markets. Here I focused on the impact of overall market movement on my strategies, as well as entries, liquidity, spread, exits, commissions, etc. Still working on this but I've made a lot of progress.
Look, the OP has made it clear that what he was talking about is, or at least should be, obvious. Regarding the *strange people* he met that fundamentally shifted his trading paradigm, I can say only either of two things. If they were the type that is into astrology, *occult* methods, and other make-believe bullshit, then I can vouch that the OP is himself a bullshitter, as I come from that background, could never make it work and absolutely regret spending thousands of dollars on that market esoterica bullshit. More likely though, the OP was talking about a much simpler method, which would be consistent with his reiteration of the method's apparent obviousness. From what I gather, he was probably talking about filtering large-block trades on the tape, and basing your decisions on the patterns that you observe. A participant that wants to move through large size is not going to do it all at once. He'll probably split it into smaller equivalent size blocks of shares, though still large, and move them through gradually. There's hundreds of large players in any liquid instrument everyday that move through blocks that make up the the bulk of the volume traded during the day, so there's no shortage of potential intra-day moves that one could catch throughout the day, if one is patient enough to catch the opportunity that presents itself. I used to trade ES using only a volume chart and the tape, and if I wasn't such a fucking amateur and impatient I wouldn't have nearly blown my account. I got only a year's worth of day-trading experience, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
I have read this thread three times probably. Still no idea what the "obvious" is... I don't think there is an obvious as there is just too many factors but I also know I don't know much about anything, so I could be very wrong I also read most of NYSE's posts and he made a few good predictions that panned out almost perfect.