Why do people use Volume, Range and Tic charts?

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from ProfLogic:

Yes, I just confirmed this as well.
Thanks!

No, you din't confirm that.

You never mentioned Vicente M. Nicolellis Jr., nor the work that he did to breakdown and understand price action in 1995.

You instead reference an article from 2003 and say that a student of yours was working on the project 2 years before then, which makes that 2001.

1995 vs. 2001 vs. 2003

Um, hello?

That, on top of saying that range bars are 3 steps back ... and you say I'm moody ...LOL.

Not only do you totally trash someone else's life's work, but you claim a student of yours "discovered" what they had been working on long before.

This is delusional on the level of when you supposedly caught the highs and lows of what was it? 10, 20 markets? perfectly in a competition with market surfer ... funny how you're the only who doesn't see it that way.

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from ProfLogic:

I stand corrected Jimmy and I apologise.
I just spoke to my student and he informed me that he "borrowed" the concept from a friend of his in Brazil. He told me for years that it was his idea. His friend started using them in 1995-6.

Oh wait, I didn't see this.

This is great.

So you just happened to speak with your student (just now) who knew someone in Brazil in 1995-1996 and he "borrowed" the concept from him ... OMFG, we are now entering ET Zone.

Oh man, this is on the level of something that someone else wrote, but is an unmentionable in my book ... I'm sure those in the know can figure-out the details. :eek:
***
OK, that's it ProfLogic, you just aren't credible anymore, have a nice life.

Jimmy Jam

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from marketsurfer:

let's start by examining the premise of this form of analysis. correct me if im wrong, but its that the markets continually repeat themselves in a fractal manner??

Nope.

Using range bars isn't based on fractals, it's based solely on price action. You see another example of it in the use of PnF charts, which have a great methdology developed around them for stock traders/investors who have mastered their use.

I can't speak on the constant volume phenomena, that's something that ProfLogic has made up for himself.

As you can see, he's really good at making up stories.

 

[MAESTRO]

I would like to point out a little gem that, in my point of view, is relevant to this discussion. The advantage of using something similar (but not quite) to “range bars” is to present the price-time series in the format that is a lot more Gaussian than one can imagine. Example: If you take an S&P 500 chart for the last 40 years or so and try to run the frequency distribution analysis you would soon find out that it looks like Log-normal or Power Low distribution. If you then plot a chart that presents the daily close price divided by an Average daily ATR (average true range) you will easily find that the chart looks totally different and it is 100% Gaussian! This leads to so many implications! The golden nugget here, of course, is presenting the price movements in the units of its volatility! This influenced dramatically the way I look at the markets and led to the development of the whole slew of successful trading strategies.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

No, you din't confirm that.

You never mentioned Vicente M. Nicolellis Jr., nor the work that he did to breakdown and understand price action in 1995.

You instead reference an article from 2003 and say that a student of yours was working on the project 2 years before then, which makes that 2001.

1995 vs. 2001 vs. 2003

Um, hello?

That, on top of saying that range bars are 3 steps back ... and you say I'm moody ...LOL.

Not only do you totally trash someone else's life's work, but you claim a student of yours "discovered" what they had been working on long before.

This is delusional on the level of when you supposedly caught the highs and lows of what was it? 10, 20 markets? perfectly in a competition with market surfer ... funny how you're the only who doesn't see it that way.

Jimmy, check out the previous post where I stated that I talked to my student who mentioned he had gotten the idea from a Brazilian friend of his. I admitted the mistake based on the information I was given and admitted to it. I'm not above error but am man enough to admit to it.

I also didn't "trash" someone's life's work I said that adding variability to charts wasn't a good idea for people looking for consistency in price. Once they see how and why price oscillates, Range Bars could provide some usefulness. You seem to have found a good use for them but then you are comfortable at seeing the use of "pure price" action. There is a huge difference.

I simply scolded you for not clarifying the point to the individual that thought Range Bars and Volume bars were the same. You know they aren't but prefered to simply make a snide gesture. That is adding to the problem.

Lastly, I have NEVER stated or implied I EVER caught the top or bottom of ANY move of ANY chart . . . EVER. I do not trade that way now or ever. Surf and I have never had a competition and most likely never will.

 

[5Pillars]

I myself have transitioned most of my futures trading to range bars and volume bars with a new way I analyze the Cumulative and IntraBar Delta. This has lead me to very clear multi-time frame entry optimization.

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from 5Pillars:

I myself have transitioned most of my futures trading to range bars and volume bars with a new way I analyze the Cumulative and IntraBar Delta. This has lead me to very clear multi-time frame entry optimization.

5P, sounds good!

 

[MAESTRO]

Quote from 5Pillars:

I myself have transitioned most of my futures trading to range bars and volume bars with a new way I analyze the Cumulative and IntraBar Delta. This has lead me to very clear multi-time frame entry optimization.

I agree. It does give a new perspective!

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from 5Pillars:

I myself have transitioned most of my futures trading to range bars and volume bars with a new way I analyze the Cumulative and IntraBar Delta. This has lead me to very clear multi-time frame entry optimization.

I agree, I break the charts down fractally. This gives me clarity to view price in those multiply time (chart increments). Taking entries and exits form those faster (smaller) increments (fractals)eliminates a great deal of risk.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from ProfLogic:


Time, though a constant in itself, contains the ability to reek havoc on the stability of volume of a chart. Volume per "time increment" is never stable and stability is critical in ANY problem solving environment.

This is why, when given the option, why would one introduce inconsistency, variability and noise into their view of the markets, though most do. It's because they do not know better because they prefer to listen to the "statis quo" instead of verifying alternatives and thinking for themselves.

I speak for myself, but I do not blindly "believe" in anything in this environment unless I can verify it with my own two eyes. I simply expect the same from others, not the lip service I get from individuals like yourself that make comments based on "your opinion" which is NOT founded on any personal research you have ever or will ever do. When you or if you EVER decide to do ANY specific due dilligence in regards to your opinions in this matter then those opinions become relevant. Until then your questions are viewed simply as being argumentative. They certainly are snide and condescending considering your lack of personal experience and knowledge regarding this information.

you did an excellent job at explaining your understanding of the market. unfortunately, you didn't answer the question---- let me rephrase--- are you seeking repeatable patterns in your presentation of data by which will provide an edge for you to exploit based on greater than average repeatability of these patterns?

surf