ES Volume Leads Price
- Thread starter Joe Doaks
- Start date
IMHO, SCT is faith based trading.
That is why they must believe.
That is why some are not worthy.
That is why some are unable to read the guru's holy writ.
It appeals to those who find it easier to believe than think.
That must be why they don't use stops.
They are like trapeze artists who don't
use nets.
Of course, everyone, including the SCT trader, is a genius in a bull market.
That is why they must believe.
That is why some are not worthy.
That is why some are unable to read the guru's holy writ.
It appeals to those who find it easier to believe than think.
That must be why they don't use stops.
They are like trapeze artists who don't
use nets.
Of course, everyone, including the SCT trader, is a genius in a bull market.
Quote from murray t turtle:
==================================
Sometimes declining volume is bearish;
except lunchtime declining volume doesnt seem to matter much.
LOL
Champion
you missed the point.,.....To say DO IT is easy to say and cute. BUT .......the real deal is NOT just to do it but to know what you are after.. DO IT is cute, thats about all, it is doing the walk, not the talk.
Just like some say vol leads price, RUBBISH!!!!!! (How much would vol change price if there were 40k cars to buy and 40 cars to sell? Total vol = 80K cars.......But would price change? NOPE!!!!! )
you missed the point.,.....To say DO IT is easy to say and cute. BUT .......the real deal is NOT just to do it but to know what you are after.. DO IT is cute, thats about all, it is doing the walk, not the talk.
Just like some say vol leads price, RUBBISH!!!!!! (How much would vol change price if there were 40k cars to buy and 40 cars to sell? Total vol = 80K cars.......But would price change? NOPE!!!!! )
I think the problem lies from taking the statement volume leads price too literally. I think it is more accurate to say volume is a leading indicator of price. Increasing volume does not always mean increasing price movement. But increasing volume does mean there is a significant chance price will continue in its present direction. Decreasing price often means a move is coming to an end. These dictums have been around forever. Are they not leading indicators? Not every time but often enough to be taken seriously. Learning volume behaviour is an important tool to add to your arsenal, imho.
Is "volume leads price" an SCT theory of volume?
It seems to me that any complete theory of price/volume should consider the three states of price and volume:
1. unchanging
2. increasing
3. decreasing
There are a number of permutations there.
For example, volume may increase but price remains unchanged. Have you considered them all?
Have you done the work?
Many ask, "Where's the beef?"
SCT is channel trading gussied up with some new names (I offer RTL, LTL, STR, SQU for your consideration).
It has not only acquired new names (is this not like an animal's inclination to urinate on things for territorial reasons?),
but has also been dressed-up in what many call "junk psychology," "garage sale psychology," and "popular psychology,"
not to mention that most insidious form of psychology, "internet forum psychology," which depends heavily on shills and bullies.
Channel trading, a derivative of trend trading, works well in trending markets. But ask yourself how often and, especially, how long, do the index futures trend intraday?
I could go on, but time would fail me to tell you of all the internet grifters that have come, gone and come again. Go ahead, complain!
To be banned from a forum full of slack-jawed, glassy-eyed SCT traders that consider Jack Hershey anything more than a pompous blowhard would be a badge of honor.
SCT is channel trading gussied up with some new names (I offer RTL, LTL, STR, SQU for your consideration).
It has not only acquired new names (is this not like an animal's inclination to urinate on things for territorial reasons?),
but has also been dressed-up in what many call "junk psychology," "garage sale psychology," and "popular psychology,"
not to mention that most insidious form of psychology, "internet forum psychology," which depends heavily on shills and bullies.
Channel trading, a derivative of trend trading, works well in trending markets. But ask yourself how often and, especially, how long, do the index futures trend intraday?
I could go on, but time would fail me to tell you of all the internet grifters that have come, gone and come again. Go ahead, complain!
To be banned from a forum full of slack-jawed, glassy-eyed SCT traders that consider Jack Hershey anything more than a pompous blowhard would be a badge of honor.
Your statement expressed in the conventional orthodoxy of probabilities and gambling is a good example of how the most traders consider various aspects of trading.
That is the way it is going to be for you and for a lot of people.
The conventional orthodoxy is what it is and it is a limitation that has consequences.
At some point a person may want to think about how counterintuitive making money is in trading as compared to how the rest of the world works.
No one obliges anyone to go about doing this. And not many people have.
Your very high priority on continuing to think the way you do simply takes a lot of considerations off the table and, very important, makes for getting from point a to point n a very long ,slow, and grueling process.
Most people take in highly intuitive ways all of the time. You can see all the fixations that they have as a consequence. You can see how long these fixations last and how difficult it is to finally build a wall, mentally, around each and every one of them one after another.
There is no way one person can get to another person and provide clues and insight to that person to get the person to be in a state where they can consider _________fill in the blank.
People persist in inventing (See your inventions above) and they do it from an intuitive viewpoint. Yours is the gambling and probability viewpoint that disallows you to think in a mode that is a possible mode.
The OP feels that being asymmetric is the governing intuitive premise for two variables changing over time. His vertical orientation drives most of what he pronounces.
He says for volume leading price:
If increasing vol>>>> then increasing price
If decreasing vol>>>>>then decreasing price.
You change it to:
Volume is a leading indicator of price.
You put in your if's and then's
We see two of the three parts of the P, V relationship where you say that IF....Then is a sequence in time necessarily.
You put in how often it works is a question that is dealt with by either betting on it working or not betting on it not working. for a mechanical system this could be in the form of a lookup table that you have built.
You suggest putting volume behavior in you conventional orthodoxy regime (It is an arsenal). You could put this in a mechanical system by incorporating the rules as a coding of the logic.
Your approach is symmetric because of how you express "effects" and that in that you just use two of the three parts of the P, V relation. Maybe the mechanical components cause a requirement that the kurtosis that appears be handled too.
Bighog observes that trading volume is not a causal factor for price change. So he does not use any relationship for volume and price.
It looks like the conventional orthodoxy intuitively produces "indications" and behavior that can be bet on. A mistaken algorithm is not on the table; it is just a mistake.
How would it be possible to get anyone to be open enough mentally, to consider counter intuitive principles of how the market is operating?
What happens before volume and price are considered?
What is the place to look and to deal with that leads to volume happening?
What if bighog could take a look there? He looks at a trade and sees that it didn't change anything or did it and he is simply like the OP, mistaken. No one cares who is mistaken about what because it doesn't matter.
What matters to get to be expert at trading? Cashmoney69 just started another of his periodic quests. He is doing another opine.
The Technical Analysis forum is desinged to deal with aspects of TA. Where does ET consider making money?
If it is known that volume leads price, then how it this principle given utility for making money? Right after the principle is accepted and made part of a trader's belief system what happens next?
BB put the probabilities to it. Bighog rubbishes it. The OP algorithms it with a mistaken algorithm. Cashmoney69, nearby, asks about "thinking" as a possiblity to do somehow as yet unknown to him.
Intuition, counterintuitive thinking?
How can a potentially expert trader get from point A to point N?
austinp is asking, repeatedly he says, what is the fast track route to expert by addressing the shortcuts on the learning curve? How can the learning curve be compressed to get to expert trading the fastest?
Could a person actually just get on the ball and skip all the preconceived notions about everything and just go for getting the job done in a critical path way?
What road blocks are each of these people throwing up in their paths to expertise? We can see each of them that is for sure. Why is it more important to not become and expert quickly that to, most probably, block your way to expertise?