All language subtitles for 1. Labels no, context yes

Analysis of the current situation.

The following part of the course we are
about to begin addresses the second part

of our trading plan, the analysis of the
market situation.

To do this, we will look at concepts and
ideas that will help us determine the

trading bias in the short term.

These will put us in a position to make
sound predictions about what the price

is most likely to do.

Let's get started.

Labels? No.

Context? Yes.

All the theory we can study about the
Wyckoff method is essential learning if

want to master this approach and truly
understand how the market moves.

But the Wyckoff method, or my way of
understanding it, goes much further.

It's not just about the almost robotic
labeling of a chart and leaving it at

that. At this point, we should already
know what underlies each event, how

behaviors are generated, and how they
are represented on the chart, the

psychology behind each one, etc.

But as I say, the method is much richer
than that.

I say this because due to the very
nature of the market, it is practically

impossible for two completely equal
structures to exist.

For two exactly identical structures to
occur, the same traders must be present

at both times, and what is even more
unlikely, they should behave in the same

way both times. Let's face it, it's
impossible.

Although it is true that we see textbook
structures daily, which can very

closely resemble the classic examples,
in most cases the market will develop

less conventional structures in which it
is much more difficult to identify

these events.

Therefore, it is essential to look not
for exact copies of these events, mainly

the end -of -trend events that make up
Phase A, but to focus on the importance

of the action as a whole.

We will probably come across many charts
in which we see the end of a trend

moment and the start of a sideways
process.

but we might not be able to correctly
identify those initial end of trend

events. In these circumstances, we might
dispose of an asset and miss out on a

future trading opportunity, which would
be a mistake.

As I say, the important thing is not
whether we can precisely identify those

events that generate a change of
character, but that the market has

generated this prior end of trend event
that it is now moving sideways.

This is the key.

Look at the example.

we see that the final result was a
bullish trend.

But what was the accumulation pattern
like?

Well, certainly erratic.

Where should I establish the end of the
trend events?

Which of those I mark is really the
selling climax, the automatic rally, and

secondary test?

Honestly, I don't have the slightest
idea.

And this is where the importance of
really understanding what this Wyckoff

method is about lies.

What interests us is that the market was
falling and has now stopped.

that it has gone from a bearish trend
state to a sideways state where a cause

being built up.

This is the prevailing context.

From here, we need to decide the
intensity of the signals that we are

determine the trading levels that we are
going to take into account depending on

whether we want to trade long or short.

As we can see, this chart left several
trading opportunities for going both

and short.

As we can see in these examples,
Although these structures don't look

like the classic ones we have been
studying, if we were to open a chart and

ourselves at the point that I have
marked with an arrow, it would not be

unreasonable to assume that an
accumulation process has been developing

It might be more or less difficult to
identify the events of the methodology,

but we can objectively see that the
price has been rejected at a certain

on several occasions, and that it has
finally managed to break out and

itself above it.

This is the key.

If we really tried, we could probably
label each and every one of the

but I repeat, this is not of prime
importance.

What is important about the methodology
is the underlying logic behind it.

For the price to rise, there must first
be an accumulation, and for it to fall,

a distribution.

The way or manner in which these
processes develop is not a significant

Here, we have another real example
involving Bitcoin.

although somewhat more authentic than
the other example seen previously.

Climaxes can raise doubts about how best
to label them. As I say, the question

is not about labels, but about
understanding the underlying events.

And what interests us is identifying the
idea that a change of character has

taken place, that the market dynamic has
changed from a bearish to a sideways

movement, from an environment where
sellers were in control to one where

equilibrium has been restored.

and where we don't know where it will
move next.

In the final part of the development of
the structure, we see that for a long

time it is incapable of reaching the
top, which in principle we would treat

sign that denotes weakness, as buyers
cannot be strong enough to send the

to those high price levels.

And what suddenly happens? Well, a
powerful bearish breakout develops, with

volume and a violent show of strength,
which finally unbalances the price

upwards, confirming the pattern as a
distribution structure.

This is the nature of the market.

When you think that the majority of the
signs you see in the chart are bearish,

suddenly, a false breakout can occur
that changes absolutely everything.

This is why the false breakout is the
most important event that we should

look for in the market.

This approach requires a very open mind.
It is enough to make your head spin.

But it is what it is.

Luckily, we do often see the classic
structures.

But the continuous interaction between
supply and demand means that these

processes can develop in an infinite
number of ways and we have to be

to observe them.

Rather than thinking about labeling each
and every price movement, we should

focus on trying to determine who is most
likely to be in control of the market

according to the signs we observe and
based on the theory we have studied.

We should start to be more aware of the
forest as a whole rather than a

particular tree.