jackj

Actually, you may have that; it depends upon your data provider. Sierra Chart - Help topic 43: Differences With Data and Chart Bars Between Services/Connections Of course, this was just one factor in my thinking; even with the same exact OHLC, it's still assuming that a lot of other traders - particularly the ones who move the market - are looking at the same time frame, and also that they're giving the Close the same significance as you. Hence, it's much more likely that they MAY indeed may be looking at a daily and it might have some significance; much less likely (I'd say) the smaller one gets on their timeframe. "Just when I thought I was out, they PULLLL me back in....!"

Truly, hopeless... Do you have two computers? Can you get the same data feed on both? If so, have one synch with an atomic clock and the other not, and see if the bars close at different times or not. Or, simply manually adjust one computer clock to 10 seconds different (to make it clear) than another, then tell me whether the exchange determines the start/end of a bar or not.

So, among those listed, is it that when price hits the floor trader pivots, a fib level, or a swing point, that price magically changes direction (or accelerates)? I guess if a computer is trading, it isn't necessarily an anonymous person, but either way, the fact that you're expecting price to react at those levels is predicated on their screen looking the same as yours. So, with respect to the not being concerned with what an anonymous trader is looking at, that's not so. You're very dependent upon them seeing the same thing as you (at least the same swing points), so that he moves the market at those places the way that you're betting he will. Though as has previously been pointed out, highs and lows (within certain time constraints) will be the same, though, so for you small differences in bar lengths may not matter much.

I prefaced it with "If you're trading any type of indicator...", so perhaps it doesn't apply to you. Tape reading is the only thing that I can think of where one could say that, and if that's what you're doing, then indeed, it wouldn't apply. Obviously, any other trader (even in tape reading) is anonymous, so the most you could do would be to take a guess at they type of trader one is based on volume. If you're saying that it doesn't matter to you what other traders are doing, I'd be curious what you are basing your trades on.

I believe it was explained well enough earlier, but in case not, briefly: Wouldn't you agree that any relevance to any indicator - including how one breaks up the flow of price/volume - the degree to which it is relevant is positively correlated to the number (and size) of traders watching it? We absolutely know that many watch daily bars, which have a set OHLC each day, and also that many of those traders are funds that buy on the open and/or close. Those funds are also some of the other time frame traders who actually move markets. But we're much less sure about how many traders and who they are who are looking at 5 minute bars, or 10 minute, 10,000 volume, etc. Therefore, it's much less likely that they're seeing what you're seeing, and hence that you're able to trade based upon what they're seeing. For those reasons, the Daily is in a different ballpark than any intraday (I would argue). I would say that 30 minute is more likely to be of value among the intradays, though, since, aside from being a longer timeframe, the different exchanges open and close on it (save for the 4:15ET), and also it's the time frame that makes up every market profile chart (default, standard setting, at least), so you do know that whoever is trading with MP charts is looking at the same thing. Also, a 1 minute bar may be 4-5 ticks long and hence has a 20-25% chance of closing on the low or high - just by pure luck, which some would say is significant. Whereas a 30 minute bar will span several points, and is much less likely, by pure coincidence, to close on that high or low (or as a doji). Finally, one person's computer clock may be a 1/2 second behind another's, which on a 4-5 tick bar can make a difference of closing on the high versus near the middle of the bar, but on a 30 minute bar of several points it won't make as significant of a difference.

After all of these posts, covering everything that could be said on this issue, some don't get the distinction made (and why) between a daily bar and a minute-based one?! Oy... And now new posters clearly didn't read anything earlier (though, I guess, who can blame them!)

First off, what market(s) are you asking about? The lowest commissions are in futures. Referencing $10-$20 per trade sounds like you're either talking stocks or maybe the spread in spot forex? If you do futures, your r/t cost should be around $4. If you're doing spot forex, especially for scalping, I'd recommend you do currency futures - saving and waiting if you have to - and trade small for proper money management rather than be subject to the whims and spreads of spot forex simply because it has a low cost to entry. If stocks, Interactive Brokers is likely (to my knowledge) the cheapest. Oh yeah... And if you do futures, and scalp many times a day (around 25 r/t per day and above), you'd save more money leasing an exchange seat.

Sorry; my bad at being inarticulate. Indeed, I was acknowledging your point, and it seems that we're in agreement in all respects. I was intending to point the others, whom you were addressing, to the issue of Confirmation Bias and the Fooled by Randomness book. To quote another great one, Emily Latella (getting esoteric here)...nevermind...

I had a similar question (mine being, "so, what is the answer?"), but in looking at his profile, I see that he's a programmer, so I believe that he was simply speaking in general terms. That one can program and backtest it to see which is more predictive, but that he hasn't necessarily done so. I say that as he hadn't popped in previously, and even here didn't give an answer. Indeed, that would be one of the criteria - and people would differ on that - what constitutes significance? And whether either qualifies. Perhaps he'll reply with his own answer that may differ, in which case obviously disregard mine, but in case he doesn't, I thought I'd add my .02...

Beat me to it. Be careful of Confirmation Bias - look it up if you need to. Arguably a trader's worst enemy. Read Fooled by Randomness, too. Now, PERHAPS these observations are legit, but your point, and the one that's been attempted to be made throughout this thread - how do we know WHICH timeframes to watch? - as well as what about different data feeds and computers not synched exactly the same, all lend a big question mark to any such observations and claims of relevance.

lol... I could have written that very same post, Mitsubishi! And I'm probably about to prove it And you definitely get cut some slack in your response to the ludicrous post (see, I can do it, too!) saying you're too emotional (right before he makes the seemingly emotional statement that the close DOES matter, whether you believe it or not, because it's the truth). Without, of course, providing any evidence of it being the "truth". As he also says that "even the Open matters", I can't help but wonder if he's talking about daily bars?, since for any other timeframe the open is either the same or only a tick different from the prior close, so of course if one found the Close meaningful, they would find the Open of the next bar equally meaningful. But, I believe earlier in this thread it was acknowledged that indeed, the daily could be seen differently than other timeframes as it's an agreed upon time. Then again, he's referencing futures, and I don't know too many individual futures traders who are trading off of daily bars. I think at this point everyone's said their view and covered all the bases; if some choose to use it as a criteria they can. It was good for them for these posts to point out (or attempt to, anyway) the fallacy (or at least problem) with using them. But a lot have found ways to trade more bizarre things successfully, apparently in spite of, not because of, those things (planets, etc.) To quote Stan Laurel, "You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead."

You say that the Close is a key element of market psychology, but then say that you find the Open useless. To go back to the OP's point, the value in anything is whether others are also using it. You appear to be referencing daily bars with your statement, but most are referring to intraday; more of an agreement that on Daily and higher tf the Close has significance. But recognize that the daily open is a reference as to where price was for European session traders at that time. It's not a random place where the market opens. While you may choose to put less value on it than on RTH, it is something "of value". In fact, simply look at how price reacts to it intraday and you'll see that other traders do take note of it. Lastly, as we're seeing as I type this, the Daily Open is affected by news so often released at 8:30A ET, clearly an important issue, hence where price is as a reflection of that news should have some value. BTW: not referenced yet is the fact that two persons' computers may be synched slightly differently with respect to time, or have a faster/slower data feed, causing a :05 candle on each's (both started at RTH session start) to look differently.

Re: PM White's posts on MA's, I thought (and think) that I was out of my league earlier when someone opined re: mathematicians and trading. But I think this is a perfect example of what that poster may have been alluding to. Mr. White explained a great mathematical, objective, random data-based analysis of what may or may not be supposed from that data. But that all is pointless, as the data is not simply random (though I guess that's what we're trying to prove - or not - in this thread). So, I'll just say that my assertion is that as people are those who determine what price is printed on that next price bar, and they factor in what's come before it (therefore it's not an independent event), there is a reason that a moving average may have more of an effect that posited in those posts. Because the reality is that traders, who are the ones who determine where that next price prints, are watching a moving average and are often (enough) trading based upon that. As well as trendlines. On some timeframes more than on others. I'm always wary of my own perceptions of charts - always keeping in mind Taleb's Fooled by Randomness book and principles - but I've seen enough daily charts that show a very strong reaction right at the 50 and 200 sma that I'm convinced that it isn't merely a coincidence. No objective proof, mind you, but perhaps Prof. Lo's paper/book has that.

I believe you have a couple of typo's in your post, though I think I understand what you're saying, MM. But, so that I don't misunderstand, would you care to share anything at all by way of an explanation as to HOW one does the above? I mean, really, you make money by taking more out than you're giving?! Who'd have thunk that... But I think you're agreeing with me, that the edge is (or in my words, CAN be) in the money management aspect. Though I'm not sure how you view the "being in the right place at the right time" aspect of it, particularly when you've said that that part is random. Again, I'd appreciate any expounding that you can do on your thoughts, and how best to take more than one gives.

Also, Do or Die, thanks for those links in the other thread you pointed out, on the studies done on Relative Strength. Interesting. I thought when studies supporting a non-random market were brought up that the paper/book by Andrew Lo was being referenced. Here's that one: Contents for Lo & MacKinlay: A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street Also, aside from MA's, which price often doesn't react as strongly or consistently to, and hence one wonders if it's random when it does, trendline support - to me - seems much more assured and predictable, whether horizontal due to prior price action there, or angled in a trending market. But I have no objective proof of that, other than looking at a chart and noting (in the case of horizontal s/r) that if price turned there previously, you at least get a greater than "average" reaction there again. Which, as was previously pointed out by Tams(?), makes sense as price is caused by human behavior, and people see what price did there previously, and react to that with their buying/selling. And, hence, not random. As to Do or Die's assertion that one wouldn't trade that (double-top) all alone, I'd say that one could, albeit for a scalp. That you'll get a predictable-enough stronger than average reaction there, even if it subsequently breaks through. Enough for a scalp.

For someone with the capability, it should be quite possible. It sure seems as though mm alone could produce profits. To eliminate slippage, assume all limit fills. Enter anywhere with 2 contracts and a 2 tick stop. On winners, take 1 contract off at +2 ticks, and move to b/e +1, or +2 with some other target #2 of +4, +6, etc. or some trailing stop. Over a long enough series, you'll have half of the chart having runs of varying lengths below your entry, and hence of 2 tick losses (x 2 contracts + commissions); and half of the time have at least 2 tick winners, with some 4 tick, 6 tick, 8 tick, etc., depending on how one configures the target #2 or trailing stop. Why shouldn't this create enough to offset the commissions, as low as they are now? Just 1 tick of extra (over 2 ticks) profit offsets commissions. I'm not saying this IS right; just that it sounds like it would work. There appear to be some here with much a much higher math background than I who can maybe point out the flaw(s) in this thinking.

You're saying that the Working Group, which does exist and is not a secret, is the PPT. FWIW, PPT as it has been alleged, and the role that you're implying, has never been proven. The Working Group does inject reserves to keep things afloat, but that's diff. from outright buying of equities. If there were a PPT, or the Working Group were acting in such a manner, I think that we'd have heard/seen definitive proof of it. As with all conspiracy theories that require many participants, over many years, I can't fathom that someone wouldn't have spoken up, and with definitive proof. The argument against it is that lack of a personal account of it, as well as evidence of where all of these orders are on the books? Where did they get funneled through? I imagine it would be possible for Goldman, et. al. to be in on it and not divulge who was on the other side of these orders that shot the market up, but someone on one of the desks would surely have said something by now that they're putting in orders for a non-company. I don't know enough about the specifics of a trading desk, but it seems like it would be very hard, at the least, to disguise a PPT. Also, it sure seemed to me that they would have acted a LOT sooner during the recent crash if indeed they existed. Pointing to a sudden bounce after-the-fact it's easy to say it was the PPT, but eventually things were going to rebound from natural forces. Did the equities simply get oversold during the panic, and hence an extreme reaction occurred in the other direction, causing the v-shaped bounce? Did the PPT also cause oil to drop from its highs, or rise from its lows, or did it also simply get overbought, and then consequently oversold, in v-like fashions? Absent any proof (having the Working Group, in my opinion, doesn't fulfill that for me), I opt for the latter scenario. My .02 worth...

Thanks for the input, guys. As I typed that, I thought of Blowfish's comments, too, but I recall reading at IB that some were, or could be, sent direct to the exchange. Now, maybe it's after they "look at" the order for margin issues, etc. And indeed it's only certain order types that exchanges handle, as I know that IB has simulated order types for those that they don't. And thanks for pointing out those other direct connect platforms, Tom, some of which Jean referenced having used, when stating that Infinity was great because they were a direct connect. I guess she didn't specifically say that those others weren't, though. And I hope you do get whatever's causing the data issues straightened out. And again, I'm just basing that on those threads I referenced in my prior post.

I'll take your word for it, Tom. Though the person I heard it from wasn't anonymous, he's in my trading group. Perhaps his source wasn't good, though. I do find it interesting that Jean specifically mentions that as a reason for her decision. Not something I'd pull out of the air if I hadn't been specifically told it by someone with regards to the advantage of their service over another. Perhaps I'm out-of-the-loop in this regard, but I don't know of any futures brokers who don't send them right to the exchange. In fact, don't most (all?) brokers not even interact with the order? Aren't they sent directly to the exchange from the user's computer? Sorry if I got my facts wrong on the NFA matter, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong regarding this, as I'm sure you know more about it than I. Thanks for your input!

Oh yeah, one more thing. Jean's comment that she wants her orders sent to the exchange, not sitting on her computer? I recalled an email in my trading group a few months ago about that. Turns out Amp Futures filed a complaint with the NFA after they got ahold of a transcript of a call between an Infinity broker and a trader wherein the broker claimed that AMP didn't send the orders to the exchange. That's false; I'd say "needless to say", but apparently it isn't, as it seems that Jean heard that line, too, and believed it. Now, I won't paint Infinity with that, as it may have only been the one broker. But what a coincidence then that that was the same broker who apparently spoke to Jean, too.

Thanks for the feedback. And I too like the trading platform, and the pricing. Neither I, nor the OP, nor Tom from Infinity, were talking about that, nor about historic backfill, Jean. And no, TA is not a charting service, but their data feeds it. And then you say that you get your data from Infinity?! No, you get it from TransAct, which is the point of the OP; they're data. In just the past few weeks there have been complaints of missing data - Intraday, live, futures data. Zenfire and DTN are also unfiltered, and every bit as fast, but also, to my knowledge, without problems such as below. Most of what Jean and Thalestrader raved about was the trading platform, cost & cust. service. That isn't what the OP nor I were talking about. Some examples of people experiencing the same thing as the OP, just from the Sierra Chart board: Gap - Sierra Chart - "The data gap between 15:52 - 16:04. I´m TransAct user. What happened?" and he includes a chart. "The data has now been restored. Apparently this was a TransAct issue. Please delete and refresh again." missing data - Sierra Chart - "around 10am es data stopped. it's back up now but data is missing. i try delete/refresh but still doesn't fill in the data" "There is a gap with TransAct at that time. It will be patched later on today." missing data - Sierra Chart - "I'm missing 2 bars on my minute charts. I Have done the right click ...delete and refresh data. No effect. Bars still missing. Transact data feed." FDAX & FESX live data problem - Sierra Chart - "I am not getting live feed of FDAX and FESX on SC this morning (London Open) although I am getting those feeds on my Infinity platform. Can you check this please?" "Apparently TransAct had a problem and the data is missing. We will work on patching it..." NOTICE: Missing Transact Symbols and Historical Data - Sierra Chart, from SC Admin themselves - "Once again for unknown reasons the Transact system is not providing access to all available symbols Sunday evening." This ended up being that TA servers were down for 6 hours. And there were reportedly problems at rollover time, for 2 weeks. Now, I understand that nothing's foolproof, but when I read claims of perfection, and that TA is better than other non-bundled data such as zenfire, TT, DTN, I just felt it necessary to respond. TA had a lot more problems several months ago, but they upgraded their server a couple months ago, and there are apparently still problems. I know many traders using zenfire and they swear by it, and haven't heard one complaint of it dropping bars, or going down for 6 hours.

Maybe now, Tom, but Infinity had many problems with their data, that calling someone wouldn't have helped with. See the Sierra Charts boards re: that. Actually, as of this month SC is having to patch people's data due to missing TA data. And fwiw, when I signed up I was only given access to certain symbols, though you're a business, and I imagine it costs you if I access more. Also, one can't get market internals, nor, I believe, a continuous contract. All things that you could work on it improve your service, imo.

Thanks, Tinson. I actually agree, that there isn't likely a hard number. Again, my only point was his initial comment that the US open was simply a continuation of pre-market. That I still wouldn't agree with. But I think we've adequately beaten this horse to death Thanks again for the inputs!

Thanks for the caveats; all good points. One of the things you mentioned was going to be one of the things I wanted to track on my own, and that's how much a drawdown do you have prior to that fill/partial fill. And I think goes to the question of the OP; when should I expect it to have filled by, if it's going to. Legitimate question and concern, and indeed, absent some good, reliable stats... And I think that's what he was asking, thinking someone might have some. As it is, I do play it partly on those stats. That is, a larger gap is less likely to fill. And I'll usually wait for a break of the RTH highs/lows to enter (towards the fill). So this morning, with a large gap, I waited until it did break the RTH highs, then entered, but also took profits at a 50% fill for the TF. Last week there were a couple the other way, where it gapped up, and not as large of gaps. Those times, the pre-market action had established highs, and then price had come down some and opened a bit lower than that. Instead of waiting for the break, when price started up, and figuring that it would attempt a fill if it didn't take out the pre-market highs, I sold on a test of those highs. Have a tight stop in, and it did retreat from there. I already had profits by the time it went back to the open, and then it did break and fill. There are no guarantees; it's all percentages and management. And no, I'm not perfect at it Just pointing out how one can trade it. Thanks again for the thoughts, and good trading.

I think my original point has gotten misconstrued. It wasn't that those traders/hours don't matter; simply that the switchover to the NY open was more than a simple continuation, that there's a marked difference in activity at that time. That's all... Thanks for all the input; good discussion!