Why do people use Volume, Range and Tic charts?
- Thread starter fearless9
- Start date
- Status
yes, we are still waiting for ANY non anecdotal claim type evidence of the objective nature of this system----
in addition, that exchange refered to the perfect track record, which, for those you don't know, you don't know---im not getting into it....
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1195149&highlight=surf#post1195149Quote from marketsurfer:
yes, we are still waiting for ANY non anecdotal claim type evidence of the objective nature of this system----
in addition, that exchange refered to the perfect track record, which, for those you don't know, you don't know---im not getting into it....
is plogic and jack hershey the same person?? that would be a trip!
thank you,
surf
wow another blast from the past, all killer and no filler.... thanks, tums!
thunderdog offers:
<b>----I am not familiar with chaos theory, therefore, I cannot comment one way or the other about it. I am out of my depth on the subject. (Are you listening, marketsurfer?)
However, I think that describing the markets as a physical entity in the context of trading them using principles of physical science may be a bit misguided. Market prices, which in the final analysis is what we are all concerned about, are just manifestations of collective human behavior. Human behavior is not readily explained by the physical sciences as I vaguely understand them. As I noted, I am not familiar at all with chaos theory. However, as I understand it, the "if-then" relationships in the markets are a lot more tenuous than the "if-then" relationships in, say, physics. Beyond that confined observation, I do not consider myself qualified to comment. </b>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marketsurfer counters leaving no survivors:
collective human behavior --very old school and indicative of your world view.
yes, back in the day, prior to the huge pools, sometimes called hedge funds, driven by quant program trading, and often just the whim of the manager. it's "collective money behavior" not collective human behavior--as one human now can have the market moving power of 1000's of others. your analysis is quite old fashion.
surf
surf
thunderdog offers:
<b>----I am not familiar with chaos theory, therefore, I cannot comment one way or the other about it. I am out of my depth on the subject. (Are you listening, marketsurfer?)
However, I think that describing the markets as a physical entity in the context of trading them using principles of physical science may be a bit misguided. Market prices, which in the final analysis is what we are all concerned about, are just manifestations of collective human behavior. Human behavior is not readily explained by the physical sciences as I vaguely understand them. As I noted, I am not familiar at all with chaos theory. However, as I understand it, the "if-then" relationships in the markets are a lot more tenuous than the "if-then" relationships in, say, physics. Beyond that confined observation, I do not consider myself qualified to comment. </b>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marketsurfer counters leaving no survivors:
collective human behavior --very old school and indicative of your world view.
yes, back in the day, prior to the huge pools, sometimes called hedge funds, driven by quant program trading, and often just the whim of the manager. it's "collective money behavior" not collective human behavior--as one human now can have the market moving power of 1000's of others. your analysis is quite old fashion.
surf
surf
Quote from Razor:
Hi,
I know Prof is extremely busy so I thought I would post this on this thread in the hopes that someone that follows his ideas could comment on my chart. Cheers
Please have a look at the chart below and see if I labeled it correctly. Basically I just used my price oscillator and every time the osc went either +.50 or .50 (black lines are the .50 lines and the red line is the centre line) I looked at price to see if it was making either a HH, HL, LL or LH. If price didn't make a HH, HL, LL or LH with the osc above or below the .50 zones then I didn't mark these points on the chart as what I am thinking is for the actual Primary trends one needs to only mark HH, HL, LL, or LH points when the osc is above or below the .50 zone.
From this chart I basically have the NQ in Primary Bear at the start up until where I have it go into Primary Bull as indicated on the chart...is this correct ?
I would imagine the best thing to do would be to look for only shorts when in the chart is in Primary Bear and only longs when in Primary Bull ?
Cheers
http://i11.tinypic.com/8gio01s.png
Got your PM and I will list the charts from Friday tomorrow and answer your PM too. Sorry for the delay but spent the weekend in the hospital with Mom.
lol : )
Errr... you're saying that fractal geometry and chaos theory haven't yielded 'positive results'? Wow, you must be keeping up with a different body of scientific inquiry than I am.
btw, in answer to your question above, the reason we might look at 343 transaction volume bars vs. 2401 transaction volume bars or any other other increment is the same reason that one person might look at 7 minute OHLC bars vs. 31 minute OHLC bars. I thought that was a bit of a weird question on your part, but maybe you just didn't understand what was meant by volume bars??
perhaps a primer on the socratic method is in order then:
http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
still waiting to find out what fractals and prime numbers have to do with tic count bars.....and why any one count is superior to any other count regardless of the "time" factor of trade.
this may assist you and others on what is actually going on here:
http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/media/stories/resources/Magic_Numbers_in_the_Dow.pdf
surf
- Status