What do you consider noise?

Quote from dom993:

No offense, but this is an oversimplified view that ends-up wrong. You are confusing signal lack-of quality with noise. I would bet you are not a musician.

Wikipedia has a long article on noise, of which the 1st sentence is a good start for the purpose of this thread: "In physics and analog electronics, noise is a mostly unwanted random addition to a signal" - I would argue that the word "random" isn't a requirement to define noise, and I will use this moving foward: "noise is an unwanted addition to a signal".

Which should make it clear that noise is always relative to a signal, and cannot be defined in the absence of a definition for the signal itself.

When it comes to trading, I contend that the tape contains a variety of "signals" mixed together ... the "signals" are the footprints of many different type of players & trading strategies - I'll refer to these signals as "signal-1, ... signal -2, .. signal-n":

tape = signal-1 + signal-2 + signal-3 + ... + signal-n.


Let's use a single strategy viewpoint, and say that it is focusing on signal-1 to derive its actions. From that single strategy viewpoint, we can write:

tape = signal-1 + noise-1
w/ noise-1 = signal-2 + signal-3 + ... + signal-n.


If we were to look at another strategy focused on signal-2, we would have:

tape = signal-2 + noise-2
w/ noise-2 = signal-1 + signal-3 + ... + signal-n.


If you insist on a music analogy, then play simultaneously the 9 Beethoven's symphonies, and try to focus listening to symphony #6 for example (which happens to be my favorite of those 9) ... this will be impossible for most people on earth, and I bet would drive (literally) crazy a good number of musicians. Trading is no different.


Go back to Brass's post ... He summarized it all in 2 sentences:

Huh?
Dom, you must be way smarter than me.
I like Led Zeppelin.
Am I still good with you?

Are you saying that you don't ever see "noise" in a market or are you saying that you see "noise", but it's really not "noise"?
 
Quote from mastertrader456:

Noise is any price action that is not tradable. Where a tradable pattern isnt identifiable. Obviously, what is considered noise varies greatly between traders.

As far as Elliot wave and other technical analysis beyond simple support and resistance/chart patterns is waste of time in my opinion. Elliot Wave is beautiful in hindsight but broken in real time. Its something nice and pretty that is easy to market and attractive to new traders. They are all just functions of price movement anyway. Its more important to understand orderflow and price action. Knowing the news and fundamentals. MACD. Stochastics, RSI, CCI, Elliot Wave all bs in todays market.

Watch the level 2, read the tape, know the news and key support/resistance. Trading is incredibly difficult so don't kid yourself that a short cut lies in technical analysis. It takes thousands of hours in front of the market. Not reading books or backtesting endless combinations of technical analysis indicators.

Just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

I agree that some price action is just not tradeable and could therefore be called "noise", but there are trading models that take into account every tick and for those models nothing, or almost nothing, is "noise". For example, if you have a time-based trading model, every minute of market action "matters" to that model, so regardless of what price is doing, as long as the clock is ticking, it's important to your model.

As far as Elliott Wave is concerned, since I brought it up and you mentioned it, I agree that it is impractical and most of the traders who try to use it are unsuccessful in doing so. But, as a model of HOW to think about the market, I think it is very useful. As an analogy, a lot of what the first generation of quantum physicists thought was right turned out to be wrong as the tools for measuring physical phenomena became more accurate, but the way in which they were wrong led to a new way of thinking which has endured and the world of physics will never be the same.

Because of its fundamental flaws, Elliott Wave was dead on arrival, but the type of thinking which prompted the discovery of Elliott Wave will always be useful.
 
Quote from dom993:

"noise is an unwanted addition to a signal".

Which should make it clear that noise is always relative to a signal, and cannot be defined in the absence of a definition for the signal itself.

So when my tv is on channel 1 and there is only white static fuzz where is the signal? There is none , right? Maybe when I see the playboy channel all fuzzy and can hear bits here and there , a little bit of signal is present :)

off topic banter over and out :)
 
Quote from BSAM:

Are you saying that you don't ever see "noise" in a market or are you saying that you see "noise", but it's really not "noise"?

I say that the "noise" I see depends on what "signal" (market behavior) I am tracking, and the way to (try to) filter that "noise" also depends on what "signal" I am tracking.
 
Quote from Trader.Fighter:

Probably a different answer to what you are looking for OP,but in my case anything between highs and lows.

This is a great example to work from ... the "signal" you are following is Highs & Lows. Price-prints in between are not (necessarily) noise, most often merely transition from 1 signal point (high or low) to the next (low or high).

Noise is what makes an irrelevant price-print becomes a high/low according to your rules, as well as what makes a pertinent price-print escape your high/low definition.

(in other words, noise is what makes what you see different from what the signal really is).
 
Quote from dom993:

"noise is an unwanted addition to a signal".

Which should make it clear that noise is always relative to a signal, and cannot be defined in the absence of a definition for the signal itself.

When it comes to trading, I contend that the tape contains a variety of "signals" mixed together ... the "signals" are the footprints of many different type of players & trading strategies - I'll refer to these signals as "signal-1, ... signal -2, .. signal-n":

tape = signal-1 + signal-2 + signal-3 + ... + signal-n.
One thing I noticed is that noise can at least sometimes be defined objectively as well as subjectively. For example, a trend trader might consider anything that is not trend to be noise, BUT there is a definition of noise that accounts for both trend and counter-trend. IOW even if you only trade RTM, noise can be defined in such a way that it excludes both trend and counter-trend, even if you only trade one of those. The CATSCAN blackbox system is based on this idea, allowing the trader to switch trading styles (trend or counter-trend) depending on which price regime he is in. And there is a regime where no trading takes place, which can be called the "noise regime" for lack of a better name.
 
Quote from mcteague:

Being new to trading, I am fascinated by the observation that watching a chart in different time frames often shows a completely different story. It almost seems that you could trade daily, hourly, or by 5 minute charts in totally different ways and still be correct.

Although It seems valuable to look at a chart in different time frames, some questions come up. If you trade on closing prices for example looking at faster time frames might give you additional insight about the mood of the market. But you might see lots of fluctuation that means little to you. What is sometimes called noise. And if you are a faster trader, say based on 15 minute charts, you might want to look at daily and even weekly ones to gauge the overall trend. But paying to much attention to the overall trend might make you miss opportunities that are occurring during the time frame you actually trade in.

So my basic questions are: How many different time frames do you look at a position from? And, How do you distinguish noise (or irrelevant information) from things that are or could be valuable. Thanks

Can't answer your questions. Need more info.
 
Quote from SteveNYC:

Can't answer your questions. Need more info.
he's just starting out. He looks at the 5 min and it looks like the world is coming to an end, then he switches to the 1 hr and it doesn't look so bad, and he switches to the daily and it hardly shows up.

So is the short shit just noise? That's the question.
 
Back
Top