In this post, I introduce Richard Wyckoff. Here’s how Wikipedia describes him (

“Richard Demille Wyckoff (born November 2, 1873; died March 19, 1934) was a stock market authority, founder and onetime editor of the Magazine of Wall Street (founding it in 1907), and editor of Stock Market Technique……..”

But the write-up does little justice to a man who established a school of thought. Richard Wyckoff believed that understanding the context and principles of market movement was the path to success. His approach struck a responsive chord within me, fanning a spark that had been lit by Market Profile Theory. It’s strange how things work out - I came across Steidlmayer in 1980 and only later to Wyckoff’s (whose hey day was in the 1920’s). Yet the two works fit together like a seemless whole.

Many modern traders are unaware that Wyckoff’’s approach was diametrically opposite to Richard Schabacker’s, the uncle of Robert Edwards (Edwards and Magee fame). Schabacker believed in the classification of patterns - the ‘why’ was less important than the ‘form’. I see Schabacker’s approach mirrored in many modern works. (For a write-up on Schabacker, see

Wyckoff opened my eyes to the relationship of:

  • Direction - which way is the market seeking to go?
  • Volume and range - how good a job is the market doing in moving in its desired direction.

Steidlmayer was later to call these factors ‘trade facilitation’.

Wyckoff’s idea behind ‘trade facilitation’ was simple: the effect (range) ought to mirror the cause (volume). If it failed to do this, the market was telling us that a new game was afoot. So, if we had above normal volume and below normal range, this was a warning of a possible change of direction.

While Wyckoff’s principles are easy enough to state, applying them (at least till now) was another matter. There were at least two troublesome questions:

  1. How do we determine the market’s attempted direction?
  2. How do we determine whether volume is net selling or buying for any given period?


The answer to (1) is to relationship between the close of today and that of yesterday: e.g. a plus close was interpreted as an attempt by the market to move higher. But what happens when you have a day with higher highs and higher lows and a down close? I always found it diffcult in these circumstances to say that the market was looking to head South.

The answer to (2) was to treat a whole period’s volume (e.g. the day’s volume, the 30 mins volume etc) by referencing (1). If we had a down close, we’d treat the whole period’s volume as selling volume. You don’t need me to point out the logical flaws to this.

Once we had intra-day volume another problem arose. The issue is well-illustrated by the volume during an ES trading session. The greatest volume tends to take place in the first two hours. The volume then tapers off till the last two hours of trading when volume again increases - usually the volume for these last two hours is less than the first two hours. Figure 1 shows what I mean. The yellow rectangle shows one day’s trading. So, given this tendency, merely comparing one period’s volume with the previous one, was inadequate - we aren’t comparing apples with apples.


FIGURE 1 ES 30 Mins Bars

Those were the problems. Tomorrow I’ll present the solutions.

Refer this blog post to a friend or colleague…
bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark

Tech tipsComputer Tricks