Well gee, this thread was closed for some reason today, just when I was about to comment. Hope I'm not violating any rules here. To anyone still interested:
I'm a big fan of Tom Williams and Wyckoff. I tried the trial version of VSA a couple years back, as did other "Wykcoffians" that have been hanging out together and studying Wyckoff for several years. We never stuck w/the program, it simply didn't work, as we knew in our hearts it couldn't. Perhaps they've improved the software, in fact I'm sure they have and will continue to do so, but there is an inherent problem that they'll never be able to address: Wyckoff pv analysis is not mechanical and it never can be. W himself would find the very concept absurd. You can't code something that is, by its very nature, discretionary. There are simply too, too many subtleties.
For example, in his original course, W does a very detailed analysis, practically bar-by-bar, of the NY Times 50 Index and later does the same thing w/a specific stock, Anaconda. This is a direct quote from Wyckoff's course, the man himself, regarding the meaning of the seemingly similar price behavior at a crucial point:
"For instance, note that the action of Anaconda during and after the distribution around 16â18, in many respects, is similar to the action of the N.Y. Times average as discussed in Section 7, page 7 through the top of page 10. But, whereas the behavior of the index continued bearish after the decline to March 4, 1930, we now (June 26, 1934) see many symptoms in the behavior of Anaconda which tell us that, instead of preparing for a further decline, the stock more probably is being groomed for another advance."
IOW, the pv action, though similar to Anaconda, meant something completely different than the pv action in the NY Times Index, when regarded in perspective of the entire phase that preceded it. One was distribution, one was accumulation. No software can analyze an entire accumulation/distribution phase, or re-accumulation/re-distribution phase. W always tells us to regard present action in relation to what's gone before it, how can software do that mechanically? It cannot. Can software tell us the cumulative and ever-shifting nature and meaning of the springs, shakeouts, upthrusts, signs of weakness/strength, tests and retests, that precede a true bo vs a false bo? In Wyckoff, everything is a result of preparation, there must be a Cause before there is an Effect. Software simply cannot mechanically analyze that Cause. W tells us over and over again: These are not Patterns, they are Principles. There's a big difference. Every chart is unique.
Harold
I'm a big fan of Tom Williams and Wyckoff. I tried the trial version of VSA a couple years back, as did other "Wykcoffians" that have been hanging out together and studying Wyckoff for several years. We never stuck w/the program, it simply didn't work, as we knew in our hearts it couldn't. Perhaps they've improved the software, in fact I'm sure they have and will continue to do so, but there is an inherent problem that they'll never be able to address: Wyckoff pv analysis is not mechanical and it never can be. W himself would find the very concept absurd. You can't code something that is, by its very nature, discretionary. There are simply too, too many subtleties.
For example, in his original course, W does a very detailed analysis, practically bar-by-bar, of the NY Times 50 Index and later does the same thing w/a specific stock, Anaconda. This is a direct quote from Wyckoff's course, the man himself, regarding the meaning of the seemingly similar price behavior at a crucial point:
"For instance, note that the action of Anaconda during and after the distribution around 16â18, in many respects, is similar to the action of the N.Y. Times average as discussed in Section 7, page 7 through the top of page 10. But, whereas the behavior of the index continued bearish after the decline to March 4, 1930, we now (June 26, 1934) see many symptoms in the behavior of Anaconda which tell us that, instead of preparing for a further decline, the stock more probably is being groomed for another advance."
IOW, the pv action, though similar to Anaconda, meant something completely different than the pv action in the NY Times Index, when regarded in perspective of the entire phase that preceded it. One was distribution, one was accumulation. No software can analyze an entire accumulation/distribution phase, or re-accumulation/re-distribution phase. W always tells us to regard present action in relation to what's gone before it, how can software do that mechanically? It cannot. Can software tell us the cumulative and ever-shifting nature and meaning of the springs, shakeouts, upthrusts, signs of weakness/strength, tests and retests, that precede a true bo vs a false bo? In Wyckoff, everything is a result of preparation, there must be a Cause before there is an Effect. Software simply cannot mechanically analyze that Cause. W tells us over and over again: These are not Patterns, they are Principles. There's a big difference. Every chart is unique.
Harold