Non-regular bars ?

Quote from nazzdack:

Well, golly gee! Feel free to bring a green bean casserole to the potuck supper then. :(
More...
I had already requested that my post be deleted because it didn't add value. As for your thoughtful invite, I will have to decline. I seldom if ever attend Bring Your Own Beans get-togethers.
 
Quote from Swarm:

Thanks for all of the replies. I think the main message was don't look too short term. I had a play with Renko and Heiken Ashi bars which seem to offer a much clearer view of trends than traditional candles, but I don't like the idea of parameters in renko which could easily be wrong and provide a misleading view.

I didn't really understand the comments about prime numbers, could somebody explain simply what you are doing with the number 7 ?

People who use constant volume charts have to choose the specific number of contracts/shares/ etc in a chart bar. You can check the field to see the basis of most volume selections and you can check given platforms to determine if the platform can handle a given chosen value. The particular choices and offerings are interesting.

Some sectors of Technical Analysis deal with the fractal relationship of "containers" of price. The containers are either interlocking or they are not.

The combination of CVB and fractals didn't work out in the sense of using any associated "logic" where logic is a word that defines a mathematical basis like that of critical thinking or dealing with algorithms or paradigms based on their respective throeies. (See Carnap and Keynes, respectively.)

the series of multiples of 7 that could be used starts with 7, 14, 21,28..... At some point a person gets to the levels of bars on various types of displays that are used for carving turns of market profit segments that occur many times a day. Relative to Proflogic's trading rate, I notice I do about 4X the trades.

Ordinarily the LCM factor that separates people, trader to trader, is 3. The reason is that trading fractals are interlocked in a ratio of 3:1. In my case there is another difference: I tradeseamlessly and continually using HOLD/Reversal and it appears Proflogic is an ENTRY/EXIT trader.

Thus the HOLD?REVERSAL trader is forced to use interlocking fractals rather than arbitrarily determined (Visual and clear) fractals.

This is not a caase of being right or wrong; it is just how much focus there is on the efficiency and effectivenss of performance.

Ir is best to look up what the definition of a prime number is. In number theory this is quite rigorous among those who do maths.


Thinking about all of this a little deeper, it seems key to understand why technical analysis works in the first place, e.g. :-

1. It works by giving you a clear view of market direction which you can use. In this case finding alternative 'views' that give you an edge might be useful.

2. It works because large market players are looking at the same charts as you and making similar decision so you are riding on the back of their volume. In which case you want as standard a view as possible to get the same view (opposite to 1.)

3. It has very little merit, and any profitability is more likely due to well timed exits rather than a predictive entry.

Why TA works has other bases TA actually builds on the basis of logic theory and paradigm theory. One key element of the sicourse is the paradigm solution to the riddle of induction. Logic and paradigm theory, conversely, build on deduction. There is NO overlap of deduction and induction.

A lot of the CW conventions in TA are based upon induction. several authors have offer strong inductive proofs of why CW based TA has pitfalls. The black swan is a terrific example of how CW messed up using poorly founded TA of the CW. Trendfollowing is another terrific example of the misdirection of TA in CW.

There is a very serious requirement when using market data to create TA to be scientific in this pursuit. you can follow the two paths of TA induction and deduction through history. The milestones are very significant.

Big money doesn't use deductively based TA. Fro those who use deductively based TA, there is an inherent ability to frontrun the big money and the herd of the finacnail industry. L Harris breaks out about 32 approaches to making money in markets (See page 199 of his work). deductive TA falls into the parasitic sector, there you see several boxes that describe what is cooking for these folks.

You may wish to consider switching from your inductive orientation.[color]
More...
 
Quote from jack hershey:People who use constant volume charts have to choose the specific number of contracts/shares/ etc in a chart bar. You can check the field to see the basis of most volume selections and you can check given platforms to determine if the platform can handle a given chosen value. The particular choices and offerings are interesting.

Some sectors of Technical Analysis deal with the fractal relationship of "containers" of price. The containers are either interlocking or they are not.

The combination of CVB and fractals didn't work out in the sense of using any associated "logic" where logic is a word that defines a mathematical basis like that of critical thinking or dealing with algorithms or paradigms based on their respective throeies. (See Carnap and Keynes, respectively.)

the series of multiples of 7 that could be used starts with 7, 14, 21,28..... At some point a person gets to the levels of bars on various types of displays that are used for carving turns of market profit segments that occur many times a day. Relative to Proflogic's trading rate, I notice I do about 4X the trades.

Ordinarily the LCM factor that separates people, trader to trader, is 3. The reason is that trading fractals are interlocked in a ratio of 3:1. In my case there is another difference: I tradeseamlessly and continually using HOLD/Reversal and it appears Proflogic is an ENTRY/EXIT trader.

Thus the HOLD?REVERSAL trader is forced to use interlocking fractals rather than arbitrarily determined (Visual and clear) fractals.

This is not a caase of being right or wrong; it is just how much focus there is on the efficiency and effectivenss of performance.

Ir is best to look up what the definition of a prime number is. In number theory this is quite rigorous among those who do maths.
More...

First it would make understanding your posts a whole lot easier if you would simply respond to a comment. We can't tell your comments from the original posters'.

The reason I invented constant volume bars and use them is because they eliminate the variable aspect of time bar charts. I trade RTH like you but I find that data outside RTH invaluable to reading the overall chart continuity.

I choose specific volume bar increments as a way to create specific containers perfectly suited to my personal (and others) trading styles; Scalp, Intraday, Swing or Position.

My containers perfectly interlock. I do not use increments of 7, 14, 21, 28 . . . as you have incorrectly stated. I use increments of 7, 49, 343, 2401, 16807, 117649, 823543, 5764801, etc. These increments never very regardless of the market. Some of my students use increments of 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, 729, etc. Either set will work, it is just that the data set of 3's contains a lot more chart increments and it is a lot more difficult for the average trader to decide the environments they will trade.

Elementary logic dictates that the only way an accurate answer can possibly be obtained is for all of the information related to the problem be utilized. One can not accurately nor consistently solve ANY problem by randomly eliminating a portion of that specific problem's data set.

The difference in the number of trades taken during each container isn't relevant. What is relevant are the trades taken inside that container are easy to read & consistently profitable . . . day in and day out. Not only that but that same level of consistent profitability should be easily replicated regardless of the container speed used.

I used to trade seamlessly. I am fully aware that, "every reason to enter a trade is the exact reason to exit the last one". I came up with that myself . . . ha. You use a reversal to change position, I simple exit at that reversal point to "take a breath". It has nothing to do with efficiency but my effectiveness of performance is outstanding. I simply evolved past the need to be constantly in the market. Just like one breaths, a trader needs the same chance to gather their thoughts and relax during the trading day. It isn't that I can't enter/reverse trade . . . I simply choose not to. As I've told you before, there is more than one consistent way to extract profit from the market each and every day.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Post one of your five minute charts from today or tomorrow from Crude, Russell, Euro FX, Nat Gas, the S&P or any of the grains and I will post a volume bar comparison of the same area. Not til tomorrow though. It's bed time.
More...

proflogic,

I am curious what is your take on market delta's footprint charts?

So one can still chart using volume bars, but with the added information about the bid-ask pressure.
 
Quote from bearmountain:

proflogic,

I am curious what is your take on market delta's footprint charts?

So one can still chart using volume bars, but with the added information about the bid-ask pressure.
More...

I find the information interesting and have been playing with them for just a short time. I do find that the market selta and volume bars offer more information than volume bars alone. Sorry I can't be more helpful. When I know more I will post my findings.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

I find the information interesting and have been playing with them for just a short time. I do find that the market delta and volume bars offer more information than volume bars alone. Sorry I can't be more helpful. When I know more I will post my findings.
More...

Yes, same here, I am new to MD as well. Looking forward to your findings. Thanks.

Just to share my take of it, So far what I find of value is using MD as a confirmation tool, and helps with exits. I find the volume breakdown indicator very interesting. I look a lot at divergence between price and a moving average of MD. this seems to work for me in range bound days, but falls apart when the market trends.

This divergence seems to be more apparent in smaller 5k volume bar chart vs 10k vol chart. Also MD seems to behave quite differently with volume charts vs time based vs range charts.

Another observation, lets say price is moving up and we see a spike in buying pressure, but price fails to advance further. This very often results in a short term reversal.

If you like lets compare notes when you are ready. Perhaps start a new thread. I exchanged a few emails with other users of MD, and one complaint I hear is that Md is great for analysis but hard to build rules around it to trade from.
 
Quote from Vienna:

One more: the volume "dry-up" that occurs before big moves. The only way I have found to see that with CVB's is that the printing of bars comes almost to a standstill... but it is much harder to see because you have no way to compare it.
More...

There's an indicator called "Time per bar" that's quite useful used with CVB, it's basically a histogram like the "regular" volume, but it calculates/plots the time it takes to complete a volume bar, when you get long histograms it means it took more time to build the bar, thus low volume , the opposite for high volume. It's a bit counterintuitive if you are used to volume histo but works pretty well when you get used to it

I found a link in my bookmarks http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f46/time-per-bar-1465.html, but I think I have another piece of code saved somewhere, let me know in case you are interested and I'll try to find it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top