Best indicators ?????????????

Quote from ProfLogic:

grrrrrr do I want to say this . . . .

I will.

Why would you want to combine something exact (volume) with a variable (time)?
More...


Thanks.

May I'm not getting the point but time is something very exact as well imho.
Just as much as volume is very variable, too.


Missed your point?? :eek:
 
Quote from Goalgetter:

Thanks.
May I'm not getting the point but time is something very exact as well imho.
Just as much as volume is very variable, too.
Missed your point?? :eek:
More...

Markets are traded in shares or contracts not minutes. Markets are traded in time period, markets aren't traded in volume periods.

Volume is not a variable. There isn't a specific or consistent number of shares or contracts traded per minute . . . ever.

Volume is exact . . . time, as it relates to volume will always a variable.

This is why we see price spikes on our time based charts at times of news releases where on the same charts at the same time based on volume you only see more bars . . . no spikes.

As the trading day, week or month plays out what is important is a particular set-up taking place that will trigger a decision making spark in your head NOT what time it is. There isn't a successful trader or money manager in the world that only places their trades at specifically consistent times of the day.

Food for thought and something to look into.
Trust no one.
Trust only what you can validate on your own, through your own work and through your own two eyes.

If you want to learn to be consistently profitable, look for what consistently occurs on your charts. This will allow you to build consistent decision making habits. The key word is consistent and volume isn't consistent as it relates to time.
 
Quote from Goalgetter:

Sounds logical -
is there an indicator combining volume and time?

If so- very much appreciated :)

G.
More...

Hi goalgetter. My point is forget indicators. Anything that is available mainstream as indicator will not work; that's the crux of my argument. 90-95% of retail traders are net losers...Why do you think that's so? Look to see what they are doing and then you might be able to build a system that works for you.

I would recommend looking at patterns of RELATIVE volume, time, and price. Think context. Majority of technical analysis is bunk without thinking in terms of context...
 
Quote from bigpapi:

Try and find someone who will provide long term, solid proof (broker statements, audited returns, etc.) of NOT USING indicators. Instead you will get beliefs, opinions, and other statistically useless claims.

Ignorance is no excuse for not using indicators.
More...

Read the book "Evidence Based Technical Analysis" by Aronson. None of these simplistic TA methods work...My group of trader friends and I call it dummy TA. Crucial to understand because it colors 'Context'; it's all about context....
 
Quote from EminiInsider:

Hi goalgetter. My point is forget indicators. Anything that is available mainstream as indicator will not work; that's the crux of my argument. 90-95% of retail traders are net losers...Why do you think that's so? Look to see what they are doing and then you might be able to build a system that works for you.
I would recommend looking at patterns of RELATIVE volume, time, and price. Think context. Majority of technical analysis is bunk without thinking in terms of context...
More...

You are correct when you say that the majority of technical analysis is bunk.

IMHO that is because anytime you apply analysis to a variable you can't expect consistency. That is common sense and something lacking in most retail traders . . . most institutional traders too for that matter.
 
Quote from EminiInsider:

Hi goalgetter. My point is forget indicators. Anything that is available mainstream as indicator will not work; that's the crux of my argument. 90-95% of retail traders are net losers...Why do you think that's so? Look to see what they are doing and then you might be able to build a system that works for you.

I would recommend looking at patterns of RELATIVE volume, time, and price. Think context. Majority of technical analysis is bunk without thinking in terms of context...
More...


Thanks for ALL replies.

Might sound like a silly question, however
what do patterns of RELATIVE volume, time, price look like?

Are there any examples via charts or indiocators?

Thanks again.
 
Quote from jack hershey:

In non inductive systems, there is logic and science involved.

As you see jerry has posted his mining critria for doing inductive reasoning and analysis. He is, I'm sure, in demand at the various money making corps of the financial industry. His work does two things: makes money and is a terrific sales support for gaining the client's attention and capital. Traderzones could sell his stuff in a New Jersey minute.

Lets turn to the reasoning of Keynes and Carnap and Bayes. Bayes and the "frequentists" get axed by Keynes and Carnap. Both avoid the "Riddle of Induction" and allow for paradigm type replacements.

When a person constructs a model, he does work that allows evaluation. Jerry cites his go/nogo relative to money making. In examining a model ap erson looks at how well the model works in terms of science.

To have a foundation from which to work, it is necessary to make it solid and thoughtful. Keynes defined this requirement in terms of the expressions of the model description. All the parts of the description, for him, had to be of like kind.

when it did this I had only four words that were inserted in all the hypotheses that were "identical in construction. So like kind meand "identical" for me. And with the proviso that, further, the parametric measures were like kind too. The measures are the four words.

I made them like kind no matter what they applied to in terms of market variables.

I did not create any additional degrees of freedom here. I uses the market variables in the foundation construction of the Hypothesis Set (HS)and its Parametric measure (PM)

There is no loosie goosie with using Crays and massive amounts of data, all inductively. People pay for that stuff and they get what they paid for.

The charts you see have little P's on volume occasionally. Do a calc for the returns in cash to cash using some % of total capital of your choice. you have a blow up on retruns if you get to any significant portion of total capital. Blow up means the model has no comparison anywhere in the financial indusrtry and THEREFORE it dies not work in any way.

I used IF, THEN statements for my HS. I used increasing, decreasing, continuing and changing for my PM.

These are all time rate of change terms in market data which is composed of non continuous functions.

Keynes said that the "in kind" dictates the use of mathematics. Bayes and "frequentists" are out of the picture at this point. They do not have to be, the statistical mechanics part of theoretical physics proves this in a NY minute.

If I have two words for volume that are mutually exclusive and the same for price, volume's antecedent, then the math is dictated.

Why long ago did the indicator designers not use the correct math? jounalists and historians do not know where to look or write about it. Perhaps, it was because the indicator designers used what was convenient for them.

I did as well, but I played by the science and reasoning rules instead of the "money making" rules.

Jerry does not ask me anything but he does ask others about "money performance". He may be usiung mathematics to analyze "money making". He gets nothing related to the market's offer. The little P's do, however.

Here your question is about "in kind". That was spoken of.

Choosing the "ings" was a consequence of the IF, then construct. Having time rate of change involved was the key to moving out of the CW orientation. Buffett is a cool cool example bcause he is a codger as am I. He does not time the markets. He is not an "ing" man; he onoly does "durable value". Cows do that with cream; they know to make milk that sepates, if it sit for a while or gets spun hard enough.

Choosing "ings" that relate to the mechanism for making money was a by product of thinking logically.

Alol of the ATS stems from the "foundation" of the HS and PM whcich are precisely "in kind".

I generate about 70 degrees of freedom using a Boolean Algebra "in kind" construct. By havinga go/nogo orientation to time rate of change, I am in the cat bird's seat.

Look at SKO's last pass on Q's (volatility and overlap). They are "ing's" too, IF a person is wired to "inging" it. I am. volatility increasing or decreasing. overlap increasing or decreasing. These are all IF's.

The THEN is used for making money. Money has two characteristics and they are orthogonal. Here, again, inductive approaches are fucked royally. they deal in opposites about 150% of the time; much more than all of the time.

Lets have a shoot the messenger moment for laughs. Ho HO.

What does it take for a person to deal "in kind" and recognize the market does not deal in opposites?

As you see on bar 57 the market long failed...

Price does two in kind things: continue and change. In Boolean terms these are mutually exclusive. Ig you are not in one you are in the other. BUT you find out deductively using the science of the null hypothesis.

This is getting long. Nice long failure.
More...

не еби мне мой fragile eggshell mind, я тебе говорю!!!
 
I will divulge a secret that will change the whole way you view price action. Sigma channels. Set up 4 separate bollinger bands, the first at 1 standard deviation, second at 2, third at 3, fourth at 4. Then set this on intraday, daily, weekly, and monthly charts. Then let the magic happen.

You're welcome.
 
Quote from alexandermerwe:

If you can interpret it correctly this is one of the best indicators that combine price action patterns and backtest results in a single measure:

Price action indicator

I hope some platform will implement it because I cannot afford it.
More...


If you have to use an indicator(let alone buy one) to be profitable, then you have no idea what you're doing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top