'No indicators' revisited
- Thread starter ford
- Start date
- Watchers 53
Bracke, do a google on "marabizou" or "maribozu", or any other spelling connotation you can think of, and you'll get a fair bit of info.
I believe the best way to describe one is a large candlestick without any "tail" or "shadow" at each end. In other words a large range bar that opens and closes at the extremes of each end, as an ideal example!
Hopefully others will either confirm or refute this info!
Cheers
Q
I believe the best way to describe one is a large candlestick without any "tail" or "shadow" at each end. In other words a large range bar that opens and closes at the extremes of each end, as an ideal example!
Hopefully others will either confirm or refute this info!
Cheers
Q
MARUBOZU
A candlestick that displays non-existant or insignificant upper and lower shadows.
http://www.hotcandlestick.com/faq.htm
robq
A candlestick that displays non-existant or insignificant upper and lower shadows.
http://www.hotcandlestick.com/faq.htm
robq
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Ah ! Yes, welcome back, Darktone, it's a riddle isn't it ? All these extra bells and rattles are not needed to carry out the job in hand, eh? What do you have to say ? Now look carefully at the
discussion that follows about the merit or otherwise of candles. This is very important relevant
to what you do, in the instrument that interests you.
discussion that follows about the merit or otherwise of candles. This is very important relevant
to what you do, in the instrument that interests you.
Last edited:
Rognvald
Established member
- Messages
- 916
- Likes
- 15
A marubozu is a candle consisting of a real body only - it has no shadows or wicks.
It is simple - it is either open at high and close at low or open at low and close at high.
China or Socrates will confirm that the size of the body shows the strength of the period's move. A large body shows large sentiment and vice versa. This has to be interpreted in conjunction with the size of previous bodies.
It is simple - it is either open at high and close at low or open at low and close at high.
China or Socrates will confirm that the size of the body shows the strength of the period's move. A large body shows large sentiment and vice versa. This has to be interpreted in conjunction with the size of previous bodies.
Last edited:
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Or shaven bottom. You beat me to it !
Ah ! A shaven head with a bottom tail is a Hanging Man, or Hammer.
I cannot remember the name of the opposite, I gave away my copy of Nison, 5 yeras ago.
I think what you intended to say is that a top shaven head has a white body under it,
and that a bottom shaven head has a black body above it.
Ah ! A shaven head with a bottom tail is a Hanging Man, or Hammer.
I cannot remember the name of the opposite, I gave away my copy of Nison, 5 yeras ago.
I think what you intended to say is that a top shaven head has a white body under it,
and that a bottom shaven head has a black body above it.
Last edited:
Rognvald
Established member
- Messages
- 916
- Likes
- 15
It was said a long way back in this thread by an honoured darksider that candles distract the eye from the important information that price by period contains.
I am finding this to be true as in using bars I am now forced to look carefully at OHLC and am not so distracted by OC alone
I am finding this to be true as in using bars I am now forced to look carefully at OHLC and am not so distracted by OC alone
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Rognvald said:
Absolutely correct ! The reason is that the colour distracts the eye. The lack of colour in a bar
frees the eye, thus the perception can be enhanced. It has to do with the use of energy.
Any unnecessary distraction has the detrimental effect of depleting energy.
Darksiders cannot operate effectively if suffering from the effects of depleted energy.
A further note:~
In consequence of the majority of traders finding it difficult if not impossible to sustain even energy throughout, hence the propensity to turn to indicators, as the use of indicators is very economical in terms of energy consumption.
This is a natural human response. The problem is human response does not adequately
countermand the information shocks delivered by market action, and this is what serves to
trip up the great majority. I am being requested not to say any more. I have just been prodded in the ribs.
Last edited:
Rognvald
Established member
- Messages
- 916
- Likes
- 15
I have been looking for a recent example chart containing the candle varieties discussed here and Dr Bungle's seems to fit the bill.
Coukld anyone post a side by side bar chart comparison of the same instrument and timeframe please. Normaly this wd not be a problem for me but these B****** computers don't always work and it takes time to get them fixed
Coukld anyone post a side by side bar chart comparison of the same instrument and timeframe please. Normaly this wd not be a problem for me but these B****** computers don't always work and it takes time to get them fixed
Attachments
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
SOCRATES said:
A Shooting-Star (considered bearish) when occurring in the context of an up-trend.
A candle with a long upper shadow with little or no lower shadow and a small real body near the lows of the period.
Nison assigns no import to it if not occurring in an up-trend. Context & Background?
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Thanks, a Shooting Star, of course, how forgetful of me. And what an appropriate name as well!
Answer :~
Weakness:~ Overt or Covert ! It does not matter where it appears, what matters is whether it originates from weakness or not.
A shooting star can originate from a situation where there is marginally more strength left than weakness at that particular point in "net present time", which is not a "rationally expected outcome" hence the price will continue to climb to the astonishment of the audience. This is a typical example of what I have described before as an "Infomation Shock" , which succeeds in flummoxing the audience as the outcome they get is not the one they immediately expect.
The residue of strength is in net present time, the outcome is out of net present time and drifting into net future time. The sudden and subtle shift in the use of time is what completes the bafflement of the already baffled, and the presence of indicators serves to cloud the whole issue, and in effect to bury the evidence.
Answer :~
Weakness:~ Overt or Covert ! It does not matter where it appears, what matters is whether it originates from weakness or not.
A shooting star can originate from a situation where there is marginally more strength left than weakness at that particular point in "net present time", which is not a "rationally expected outcome" hence the price will continue to climb to the astonishment of the audience. This is a typical example of what I have described before as an "Infomation Shock" , which succeeds in flummoxing the audience as the outcome they get is not the one they immediately expect.
The residue of strength is in net present time, the outcome is out of net present time and drifting into net future time. The sudden and subtle shift in the use of time is what completes the bafflement of the already baffled, and the presence of indicators serves to cloud the whole issue, and in effect to bury the evidence.
Last edited:
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
In net present time and net future time, if the term 'net' is used in the standard context of what is left from the gross after 'something' is taken away.
What is the gross and what is taken away?
What is the gross and what is taken away?
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Bramble,
The interference caused to the intuitive input by your opinion at the time, that serves
to disable impartiality.
You cannot play God with this and have opinions.
The herd are allowed to have opinoins (about which they can choose to argue about or not)
In the Star Chamber opinions are not allowed, whereas views are welcomed.
OK, I am willing to explain further:~
Let us use the performance of Magic for the purposes of entertainment of an audience
as a model to illustrate the above point.
Professional performing magicians will have a view as to how best to perform and
present an illusion to an audience.
The audience, in turn is attentive, but not privy to the view.
The performing magician, will perform whatever it is, mentalism, conjuring or whatever.
The audience will have an opinion of how perhaps it is achieved.
The opinion is unlikely to yield the result to the audience in a way that will satisfy their
mixture of wonderment and curiosity, because the route to unravelling the mystery is
blocked by the existence of an opinion, since an opinion carries with it several viruses.
The opinion has a natural propensity to focus and lock on to the outcome, but not the cause.
For this reason the audience remains baffled. The magicians know this as this topic
has in a different way, been studied and refined for the purpose of entertainment, for
centuries.
Now we see that the way a magician thinks is very different to the way the
audience is able to think. In the world of magic the thinking processes that lead to the
achievement of effects are not the processes that the public is encouraged to follow.
Hence the motto of the magic circle is Indocilis Privata Loqui ~ Not Apt to Reveal Secrets,
because this would destroy mystery and put a lot of people out of work, and spoil the entertainment..
Now don't go and make a nuisance of yourselves asking questions at
Stephenson Way because the answer is not to be found there.
The answer is to be found inside yourselves. You have change the way you think and in order to do this you have to change yourselves in the same way that a performing magician is an
entertainer but a husband, father, son and brother in ordinary life.
You have to strive to change yourselves, and when you achieve the ability to do that you will be able to dispose of the crutches you rely upon and be able to walk free. I mention magic because in different ways everybody is subject to misdirection.
This misdirection takes place in politics, current affairs, news, fashion, advertising, education, religion, and wherever you look, you have acquired yardsticks with which to carry out measurements.
It happens that for what you are in, the yardsticks you have are useless, but as a matter of habit, it is nearly impossible to dispense with them.
The problem is, even after repeated experiences, the natural propensity of people
to hang on to that which is familiar and comfortable is very great, even if it is subliminally realised that these are the wrong things to hang on to in an arena in which the yardstick of ordinary life is useless, and has to be replaced, but everyone persists in persisting. That is why darksiders are in the absolute minority.
The interference caused to the intuitive input by your opinion at the time, that serves
to disable impartiality.
You cannot play God with this and have opinions.
The herd are allowed to have opinoins (about which they can choose to argue about or not)
In the Star Chamber opinions are not allowed, whereas views are welcomed.
OK, I am willing to explain further:~
Let us use the performance of Magic for the purposes of entertainment of an audience
as a model to illustrate the above point.
Professional performing magicians will have a view as to how best to perform and
present an illusion to an audience.
The audience, in turn is attentive, but not privy to the view.
The performing magician, will perform whatever it is, mentalism, conjuring or whatever.
The audience will have an opinion of how perhaps it is achieved.
The opinion is unlikely to yield the result to the audience in a way that will satisfy their
mixture of wonderment and curiosity, because the route to unravelling the mystery is
blocked by the existence of an opinion, since an opinion carries with it several viruses.
The opinion has a natural propensity to focus and lock on to the outcome, but not the cause.
For this reason the audience remains baffled. The magicians know this as this topic
has in a different way, been studied and refined for the purpose of entertainment, for
centuries.
Now we see that the way a magician thinks is very different to the way the
audience is able to think. In the world of magic the thinking processes that lead to the
achievement of effects are not the processes that the public is encouraged to follow.
Hence the motto of the magic circle is Indocilis Privata Loqui ~ Not Apt to Reveal Secrets,
because this would destroy mystery and put a lot of people out of work, and spoil the entertainment..
Now don't go and make a nuisance of yourselves asking questions at
Stephenson Way because the answer is not to be found there.
The answer is to be found inside yourselves. You have change the way you think and in order to do this you have to change yourselves in the same way that a performing magician is an
entertainer but a husband, father, son and brother in ordinary life.
You have to strive to change yourselves, and when you achieve the ability to do that you will be able to dispose of the crutches you rely upon and be able to walk free. I mention magic because in different ways everybody is subject to misdirection.
This misdirection takes place in politics, current affairs, news, fashion, advertising, education, religion, and wherever you look, you have acquired yardsticks with which to carry out measurements.
It happens that for what you are in, the yardsticks you have are useless, but as a matter of habit, it is nearly impossible to dispense with them.
The problem is, even after repeated experiences, the natural propensity of people
to hang on to that which is familiar and comfortable is very great, even if it is subliminally realised that these are the wrong things to hang on to in an arena in which the yardstick of ordinary life is useless, and has to be replaced, but everyone persists in persisting. That is why darksiders are in the absolute minority.
Last edited:
I show below to-days ftse chart.
There are two large volume spikes at approx 12.20 and 0130 with little price movement.
Is this simply a case of a sudden large equal number of buys and sells or am I missing something?
Would one of the enlightened ones care to enlighten the unenlightened?
Thank you
Regards
bracke
There are two large volume spikes at approx 12.20 and 0130 with little price movement.
Is this simply a case of a sudden large equal number of buys and sells or am I missing something?
Would one of the enlightened ones care to enlighten the unenlightened?
Thank you
Regards
bracke
Attachments
Hi,bracke said:
Sorry Bracke, I'm not one of the enlightened ones but maybe one of the enlightened ones can help both you and me
I found T2W a few weeks ago, been busy reading ever since. Got onto this thread from the First Steps section - Recommended Forum Topics. Went through FTSEBeaters thread on the basics of trading and then onto here! All the way from page 1 to page 59 where it finished. I went to elite forums to read dbphoenix thread on price and volume and the associated pdf files he's made available on Yahoo. Went through most of Jesse Livermore's autobiography. It makes fascinating reading and gives an insight to the shakers and movers. Am halfway through Richard Wyckoff. I'm going to reread this whole thread again as a lot of the stuff went over my head this first time around!! but then I saw the above post by Bracke and I couldn't resist
.... I had a look to see if I could come up with a story behind the price & volume. I've come up with something which to me seems a reasonable interpretation "after the event" so I thought I would post it here to see other peoples reaction and to see how much I don't know! --
I would go back to just before 9am where there was some support (more buyers than sellers) that pushed the price up. I think the crowd thought that there might a rally in sight, hence the long bar up at 9:10. However, there was little follow through on low volume on the following bar (majority disagreed), (shooting star) opens and closes roughly the same but the range moved up during the bar.
There were attempts by the bulls at just before 10, 11:30 and 12:20 to buy but they were beaten back by the sellers each time.
Around 12:20, the price had come back down to 4500 where it bounced earlier in the day. I think a few of them were getting nervous and then there was an agreement on the price that it was fair. A balance between buyers thinking it was going up, and sellers thinking is was going down, hence the narrow price range. However, in the end the sellers won when the price breached 4500 at just gone 12:30.
I think the price drop at 12:55 past the price of 4497? at 8:15 caught a few people napping and they didn't sell, hoping it would bounce. Eveyone waits nervously (volume drops) and waits to see what happens. It breaches 4495, some people think it is cheap and start buying but the sellers come back and push the price down again. At 1:30 I would have said the bulls back in the morning have decided to give up and sell, (maybe because it hit their stop losses or in relation to some other point in the chart from previous days).
Anyway, that's what I think so far.
Anything above 3/10 would tell me I'm on the right track
... just don't laugh too loudly at my mistakes ==
I'm off to read the rest of Wyckoff and from page 60 (post 886) to here!
--
Alan
Last edited:
firehorse
Thank you for your reply.
You have been busy haven't you? I admire your tenacity and determination, thats at lot to take in .
As to your explanation of the spikes, You may be correct , however it could just be a large trade from one seller to one buyer nothing more devious than that. I think that we have to be careful about reading lots of reasons into volume changes that are our imaginings rather than actual.
Regards
bracke
Thank you for your reply.
You have been busy haven't you? I admire your tenacity and determination, thats at lot to take in .
As to your explanation of the spikes, You may be correct , however it could just be a large trade from one seller to one buyer nothing more devious than that. I think that we have to be careful about reading lots of reasons into volume changes that are our imaginings rather than actual.
Regards
bracke
I don't know about the usual trade volume sizes of the shakers and movers behind the scenes, but even so, someone brought and someone sold.bracke said:
I agree that we need to be careful about reading lots of reasons into volume changes and the market will soon tell us if we were wrong!
I was hoping my comments would help point out if I was reasoning correctly or imagining things wrongly. I thought I would learn more by posting than by lurking so I posted!
I'm looking forward to feedback from one of the enlightened ones
--
Alan
Similar threads
- Article
