Why do people use Volume, Range and Tic charts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from fearless9:

I also have been playing around nesting out ( is there such a phrase) and I can see the logic behind the thinking.
Certainly my trend charts are more in line with my trade chart ... I can see that.

I may speed up my trade chart a tad as squaring puts more mileage between charts ... more than I have been accustomed to that is. I used to multiply by the magic numero 3.

You are certainly stretching me PL .. muchas gracias
More...

I'm glad I can stretch you . . . lol

I like prime numbers. They are simple to use. You can't use "1" for obvious reasons, "3" is ok but too fast for some people, "7" is good, "11" is useful and finally "13". After 13 the primes get to large to create charts from and I personally think 13 falls into that catagory.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

MK look back to the post where I listed the different chart increments. Those were examples only, you can create your own. Use a slower one for Trend and the next fastest one for entries and exits.
More...

PL, I have read it a few times. You mean the one where you do the example with 9s. What I'm finding though is the difference starts to get too big. For example...on the euro bund, a very high volume contract I like to trade off something around the 6500 area. So I could do this:

3x3= 9
3x3x3= 27
3x3x3x3= 81
3x3x3x3x3 = 243
3x3x3x3x3x3 = 729
3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 2187
3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 6561 < trading chart
3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 19683 < high timeframe

Have I got the idea right?

But then I try and do the same thing on the euro stoxx50 and the numbers don't seem to give me a good range. I can't use the above numbers for some reason they make the charts look either flat (volume bars are too small) or too tall (volume bars are too large).

So I try it with 4s I think:
4x4= 16
4x4x4= 64
4x4x4x4= 256
4x4x4x4x4= 1024
4x4x4x4x4x4 = 4096 < this looks good for trading
4x4x4x4x4x4x4=16384 < this is pretty darn big

Does what I'm saying make sense? Maybe I'm not used to looking at as small a timeframe as you are and that is why you don't have this problem with the method.

I'm just simple little bald guy trying to figure it out. Thanks.

Kind regards,
MK
 
Professor Logic,
Squares method is it! :)

Been looking at it closely today and the 4 square sequence of chart nesting, in the market I trade, is the best I have seen from all the combinations that I like (including what I posted previously). At least using data that I have available at the moment, but I will forward test it more. Thanks for sharing.

Why does it work so well??
 
MK
Try getting your tend chart(s) in place first so that they are an accurate pictorial of what you are trying to do.
Then and only then drop down a square and tune your order execution into this chart.
What you are experiencing is the same situation that I have just worked through.

Pay close attention on your OE chart to your T&S and which the big hitters flow through.
 
FWIW, when I first began using VB charts, I looked for a VB equivalent to the tic increments I had been using for detecting trend and determining entries and exits. This turned out to be 1000 and 10000. The fact that these are squares was accidental. But "time" never had anything to do with it (though way back when I used time, I plotted charts in 3x increments [5m, 15m, 45m], so the increment idea was nothing new).

I have no idea whether a number's being prime or not is pertinent. My intervals are close enough to the equivalents. The uber consideration is price action, not how one elects to display it.

LC
 
Quote from MidKnight:

PL, I have read it a few times. You mean the one where you do the example with 9s. What I'm finding though is the difference starts to get too big. For example...on the euro bund, a very high volume contract I like to trade off something around the 6500 area. So I could do this:

3x3= 9
3x3x3= 27
3x3x3x3= 81
3x3x3x3x3 = 243
3x3x3x3x3x3 = 729
3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 2187
3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 6561 < trading chart
3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 19683 < high timeframe

Have I got the idea right?

But then I try and do the same thing on the euro stoxx50 and the numbers don't seem to give me a good range. I can't use the above numbers for some reason they make the charts look either flat (volume bars are too small) or too tall (volume bars are too large).

So I try it with 4s I think:
4x4= 16
4x4x4= 64
4x4x4x4= 256
4x4x4x4x4= 1024
4x4x4x4x4x4 = 4096 < this looks good for trading
4x4x4x4x4x4x4=16384 < this is pretty darn big

Does what I'm saying make sense? Maybe I'm not used to looking at as small a timeframe as you are and that is why you don't have this problem with the method.

I'm just simple little bald guy trying to figure it out. Thanks.

Kind regards,
MK
More...

By jove you have it. Good job.
 
Quote from NZDSPeCIALISt:

Professor Logic,
Squares method is it! :)

Been looking at it closely today and the 4 square sequence of chart nesting, in the market I trade, is the best I have seen from all the combinations that I like (including what I posted previously). At least using data that I have available at the moment, but I will forward test it more. Thanks for sharing.

Why does it work so well??
More...

It works so well because you are now looking at the market in a fixed environment. Your brain can react to it better. It is clearer.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Well put.

I like structure though.
More...

So do I. But I find so many traders waiting for a "bar" to "close", or for a "candle" of some sort to form, focusing on whatever choice they've made to display price and largely ignoring price itself, much like plotting indicators then focusing on the indicators.

LC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top