Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Josh, keeping in mind we both know I am at MP101...
This is what I saw as the "majority of volume"
That did not cause me to want to take the trade, as any version of MP has not had a place on my screens for years until lately, and I am not interested in being a trading guinea pig any more than I have to...
But because the majority of my learning energy is going to MP, I am trying to integrate the charts at least, see something visual and try to see if it agrees or disagrees with the other thougts I am having. That prompted the comment recently that "I know nothing", market-profile-overdose-induced-analysis-paralysis (MPOIAP, just in case).
I saw in dalton's book a ratio of above vs below POC, but the GOM indicator does not seem to include that text. I was going to buy the fin-algo today, but got sidetracked. I think it did offer that display option.
But back to the close long, my confirmation was the high volume bar test of the low of the mid-to-late RTH channel. I did not eneter at the test, I entered when it came back up to the most recent high pivot.
Meanwhile, prior to that I had just been watching, and posted on the VWAP thread a question of what the MP/POC crew saw.
OK I see. If the mode of the distribution is the delineation, then yes there is more volume below than above. But looking at the entire distribution from high to low, it is clear that there is more volume at the top than the bottom, and that is what is more relevant to me. It says to me that as the day has progressed, higher prices have been accepted as more fair. It says that lower prices are unfairly low. And perhaps more importantly, it says that there has not been an auction higher to test whether higher prices will be considered unfairly high, or whether they will be accepted as fair. If a store sells an item that sells out quickly, it likely raises the price to test the market higher. If it finds that higher prices sell sufficient inventory and these higher prices become established as fair for some time, what is more likely to happen next--the store raises prices again to test the market's acceptance or rejection of higher prices, or that it will lower prices to those that have already been determined as too low? Well, barring some unforeseen shift in consumer sentiment, I would think higher prices are likely to be seen to test out the market's willingness to pay them. It doesn't mean that it will continue higher, it could just as well auction lower. But the preceding logic, and experience says that it is more likely to continue higher. No guarantees, but your own trading logic based on experience also said, "would rather be long up here than short."
This is TPO count. It is not used very much anymore. A read in MoM on this will show why; he uses logic relating to TPO count and locals .. yes, those dinosaurs which are near extinction and play zero role in the global marketplace. I still laugh when I read comments like "locals are selling 800" ... 800, ha, funny when 2 million traded today. Even the revised text for the CME MP handbook says this: "Keep in mind, though, that certain ideas such as the initial balance, the TPO count and the kinds of range development are going to become less important..."
Why would I get offended? We're just a couple of guys talking markets man. I wouldn't be up chatting if it was not fun and interesting to me.
My question about your long is this--when you saw the high volume come in (that you circled), were you already thinking that you should be long? If so, why not buy right then? If the fairest price is 92.80, and you can buy at a discount of 92.70, why not do so, and why instead buy above the fairest price at 92.84? Just asking, and we have some differences in trading styles no doubt so I'm asking from one style to another. I could very well ask myself the same question today on an early long that I took, so this is a learning process for me as well, and talking through it with someone is very valuable I think.
Because I have taken a very casuul and silly approach to my discussions lately. It is serious, no doubt. If I am down $1k, that was our food, utilities, etc. yet I seem to joke about the whole thing. To me it is fun, and if I had to put into one sentence why I almost imploded last year, it is because I would not allow it to be.
But that sarcastic, turtle-fucking, 50 contract shorting on a CNBC bullshit article, laughing-at-a-loss approach; combined with a very serious, business-minded, analytical, driven personality, seems to work for me. I stopped questioning it, and I see it in real dollars.
I see, ok. In the end they are all guesses, which is the hard thing for people like me and you (you have talked before about how everything was calculated to the T on a spreadsheet, nothing was uncertain, etc.) who prefer (as most people do I guess) exactness, which is of course detrimental to us traders.
By "therein resided exactness" I guess you mean at the circled area, 92.70? But you said a couple of posts ago that "at 92.70 it was anybody's close" -- and definitely it was almost ruled out, but nothing's for sure, and for me anyway, I like 100% probabilities much more than 90% ones by nature But in trading I have to live in a much lower realm than even 90%.
There is value in all that calculating to a T. It offers a mathematical understanding of movement. But a heavy focus on those extremes causes us to try to predcit the future without listening to what is the present.