Advance Price Action Trading with Demand Supply & More

[primitivetrader]

@AlphaT , Your videos are very good. Currently I am going through those understand the PA concepts. Last Friday, while watching ITC, it had SZ in 30m/60m time frames around 174-177rs. But it was broken decisively till 182rs. Could you explain why the SZ are not respected here. Please share your valuable thoughts. View attachment 41424 View attachment 41425

alphat shall give a more detail answer. my take is the zone which you have marked as, not a fresh SZ it was already tested once at the beginning of April. current PA arrival is 2TB which has a low probability of giving a favorable reaction.

 

[AlphaT]

@AlphaT , Your videos are very good. Currently I am going through those understand the PA concepts. Last Friday, while watching ITC, it had SZ in 30m/60m time frames around 174-177rs. But it was broken decisively till 182rs. Could you explain why the SZ are not respected here. Please share your valuable thoughts. View attachment 41424 View attachment 41425

What @primitivetrader mentioned is correct! This was the 2nd time back to the original SZ on the left. Take a look at the chart below. When price entered the SZ for the first time, most of the pending sell orders were consumed or the selling insti got most of its sell orders filled. Thereafter when price returned back for the 2nd time to the zone, they were less quantity remaining so a minor bounce took place. Thereafter when price returned for the third time, it sliced through the zone with minimal resistance. Hope this clarifies your doubt.

 

[vishalwadera]

Itc Uptrend More Details

 

[primitivetrader]

Itc Uptrend More Details
View attachment 41447

kindly post thread topic related stuff. you have your own thread post your charts there. there above chat is not related to the thread topic.

 

[vikki_trader]

What @primitivetrader mentioned is correct! This was the 2nd time back to the original SZ on the left. Take a look at the chart below. When price entered the SZ for the first time, most of the pending sell orders were consumed or the selling insti got most of its sell orders filled. Thereafter when price returned back for the 2nd time to the zone, they were less quantity remaining so a minor bounce took place. Thereafter when price returned for the third time, it sliced through the zone with minimal resistance. Hope this clarifies your doubt.

View attachment 41442

Thanks @AlphaT for the detailed response. From your chart i understand the mistake of zone marking.

 

[vikki_trader]

alphat shall give a more detail answer. my take is the zone which you have marked as, not a fresh SZ it was already tested once at the beginning of April. current PA arrival is 2TB which has a low probability of giving a favorable reaction.

@primitivetrader Thanks for your kind reply.

 

[vikki_trader]

What @primitivetrader mentioned is correct! This was the 2nd time back to the original SZ on the left. Take a look at the chart below. When price entered the SZ for the first time, most of the pending sell orders were consumed or the selling insti got most of its sell orders filled. Thereafter when price returned back for the 2nd time to the zone, they were less quantity remaining so a minor bounce took place. Thereafter when price returned for the third time, it sliced through the zone with minimal resistance. Hope this clarifies your doubt.

View attachment 41442

@AlphaT
I have some doubt to ask. In my chart i marked the base candle/doji as SZ which you have marked as FTB. Why it is like that. Why you have marked the base candles on 12th March as SZ. Is it because that SZ was not broken during your FTB case. Please clarify

 

[AlphaT]

@AlphaT
I have some doubt to ask. In my chart i marked the base candle/doji as SZ which you have marked as FTB. Why it is like that. Why you have marked the base candles on 12th March as SZ. Is it because that SZ was not broken during your FTB case. Please clarify

Good observation Vikki!
No, the zone was marked on the basis of the PA of 11th March, not on the basis of FTB PA. FTB took place many days later on 20th March. It was because of the kind of candles that were formed there on 11th that I decided to take the whole flag as a SZ. If I had marked it as below (see chart below), it would also be ok; in fact this would have yielded a better RR, but this would have a higher chance of being a missed trade. It's a choice that an individual SnD trader needs to make while making zones for a trade, that is, whether to opt for higher RR or to opt for higher odds of getting an entry:

 

[vikki_trader]

Thanks a lot

Good observation Vikki!
No, the zone was marked on the basis of the PA of 11th March, not on the basis of FTB PA. FTB took place many days later on 20th March. It was because of the kind of candles that were formed there on 11th that I decided to take the whole flag as a SZ. If I had marked it as below (see chart below), it would also be ok; in fact this would have yielded a better RR, but this would have a higher chance of being a missed trade. It's a choice that an individual SnD trader needs to make while making zones for a trade, that is, whether to opt for higher RR or to opt for higher odds of getting an entry:

View attachment 41483

@AlphaT Thanks a lot for the detailed response. in this chart also i see the SZ formed on 11th Mar was not broken on 23rd Mar though it tried to break it. Due to this shall we take that SZ is still valid with FTB so its not a fresh SZ. So it won't be a high probable trade during next visits. But if it was broken on 23rd Mar (FTB case), then it is no longer a valid SZ. Am i right with my understanding. Please confirm.

 

[AlphaT]

Thanks a lot

@AlphaT Thanks a lot for the detailed response. in this chart also i see the SZ formed on 11th Mar was not broken on 23rd Mar though it tried to break it. Due to this shall we take that SZ is still valid with FTB so its not a fresh SZ. So it won't be a high probable trade during next visits. But if it was broken on 23rd Mar (FTB case), then it is no longer a valid SZ. Am i right with my understanding. Please confirm.

Yes, your understanding is correct Vikki!