So I've been studying with the help of ICT's material. I still haven't finished the Market Makers series, but I intend to do that this week.
I've thought up a notion that I think makes sense, but I'd like someone to tell me if it there's actually anything to it (I'm sure if it does, it's in some shape or form in the ICT material I have yet to view).
Price seeks liquidity, right? So by stepping into the institutional shoes one could arguably trace out a price path based on the most efficient route through liquidity (stop losses and orders).
In the attached image we can see the classic pattern that has completed just today in the fiber. I've marked all the long and short stops the pattern could generate as it went along, and deleted them as it busted them. In the end, only the ones that I've left in the image remain. They could be eliminated by the move I've delineated in the image, leaving just one potential "unclean" spot at the current price. It's like that game we played as kids in school trying to draw shapes without crossing the same spot twice with our pencils.
So, what do you think? Is this nonsense? Is it too obvious? In the 15 minute timeframe it looks like trying to find the nearest source of liquidity works quite well (better if in accordance with the larger timeframe direction).
I've thought up a notion that I think makes sense, but I'd like someone to tell me if it there's actually anything to it (I'm sure if it does, it's in some shape or form in the ICT material I have yet to view).
Price seeks liquidity, right? So by stepping into the institutional shoes one could arguably trace out a price path based on the most efficient route through liquidity (stop losses and orders).
In the attached image we can see the classic pattern that has completed just today in the fiber. I've marked all the long and short stops the pattern could generate as it went along, and deleted them as it busted them. In the end, only the ones that I've left in the image remain. They could be eliminated by the move I've delineated in the image, leaving just one potential "unclean" spot at the current price. It's like that game we played as kids in school trying to draw shapes without crossing the same spot twice with our pencils.
So, what do you think? Is this nonsense? Is it too obvious? In the 15 minute timeframe it looks like trying to find the nearest source of liquidity works quite well (better if in accordance with the larger timeframe direction).