davewolfs

Could anyone provide feedback on eSignal's data feed. DTN has proven to be unreliable when used with Neoticker to track more then 200 symbols. Although I can confirm that their data is very clean.

Just a couple of questions regarding this. Perhaps some of you have experience with this. 1. Is watching a real time fast cash index useful - If you are not performing arb trades, is this useful at all for watching the futures? 2. What type of calculation must be performed in order to determine the fast cash value, for example if you know what the most recent printed SPX value is and you know what each underlying components price is, how would one work out how much weight should be given to each component to determine the SPX price based on the underlying components? I appreciate any input on this.

So there are 27 inputs used here to compute - non of which involve price?

The test was simple. A price double/bottom top which compared current inventory to inventory the last time the price was visited within a weekly time period - intermediate trend was ignored (perhaps it should not have been, but an optimizer was used to tweak certain values for defining how we find where the change in inventory began). Divergences then for both long and short were computed being triggered when divergence values of 0-X delta were met (this is where a GO can really save you time). Failure was defined as one of these divergences occurring and price continuing to move against the diversion more then X points. Based on the example in the thread you posted, a failure would have occurred if that double top had been exceeded more then X points while the divergence remained in place.

I'm not sure to what extent you've back tested these types of divergences, it seems these setups failed miserably in 2009 and worked wonderfully in 2010 (both long and short even on smaller timeframes).

I'd be interested to know your usage of TI especially when trading longs in a bear market. There is a ton of noise under these circumstances simply because of the nature of what is happening (stops being triggered etc..)

Have you ever deployed an automated trading strategy that is based purely on TI?

When price approaches one of your zones where you choose to do business based on whatever your hypothesis may be and you are entering a position, are you not intensely focused? I know I am, which is why I plan ahead and do not allow myself to be hypnotized by watching the tape all day long. When one of these pre-determined areas are visited and everything lines up right do you require TI in order to confirm that you should proceed with your order?

Correct and much of this can be seen visually on a footprint chart or DOM which shows volume transacted at a specific price.

I'm pretty sure I know pretty well what type of signals you are discussing here, short covering in particular has worked exceptionally well with this methodology, I like to believe that when one side is wrong and the bots/locals/whoever are taking advantage of that they will push the market in a specific direction until all these players are taken out, once they are gone and nobody is left to initiate is when we get rapid moves in the opposite direction. Market makers seem to love doing this first thing in the morning or during lunch As for trade intensity, I don't see how it applies to this in anyway with regards to timing an exact entry. Personally I'd rather see UB discuss when his methods failed and why. How the use of specific additional filters can aid with TI. We've only seen the perfect trades and I'm sure they are not always this way.

For those who plan to pursue trade intensity along with UB's other 27 inputs in a weighted index. You might want to experiment with a basic consensus system such as: Formula 301 – #4 Basic Consensus System | NeoTicker Blog The key is obviously finding the inputs and the appropriate weights and combination's that apply to current market conditions. The above combined with a tool such as Neo's grid optimizer to vary the weights given to each input (or input settings) can allow for rapid testing of trade ideas. I myself have had good success being able to test ideas with Neo's GO. UB, if/when you have the time, I'd like to see some of your charts which show false positives and why the signal was ignored.

Yes I know nothing. And I am not saying much Folks the point is, neither is Urma and those who are try to replicate his ideas. Find your niche, create your own ideas. There is no holy grail in this thread or any of the other threads that have been posted. There is no "rocket science" presented here. Price pays. The charts look great in hindsight, that is about it. Happy trading and may you all be profitable.

Just a couple of points. 1. You do not need trade intensity to understand where turning points occur. 2. If you are intimately familiar with the ES, you can get a good understanding of the size of prints which occur at major reversal points. 3. In a Bull as strong as what we had this morning, it was not difficult to understand where to pick pullbacks, all you needed to do was wait for a confirmed change in momentum and price indicators alone were sufficient for this. 4. If you did your homework you would notice that intensity spikes likely took place at High Volume and Low Volume Nodes on a volume profile. Viewing the prints alone at these levels were indicative that heavy volume was being unloaded in these areas in a very tight congested range following up to these points of confluence. You did not need trade intensity to determine this. There is no "perfect" way to trade and many of the topics described in this thread can be replicated using market delta. If you can understand orderflow and choose areas where you think institutions are likely to participate you can do fine with just the DOM, prints at a given price, delta and a volume profile chart. Re Urmablume's charts. Whatever they are, the one showing the negative divergence can be replicated using delta momentum in market delta. Perhaps it might not be exact, but the chart that I use looks nearly identical to what UM has posted. Try watching trade intensity during a bear and it will spike to your hearts desire. These spikes do not necessarily imply that it's time to buy (or sell). Cheers!

Nothing is being done. If you watch their video, the person who is demoing the software specifically says the bars are created using PNF bars also known as a reversal chart which has been in MD for a long time.

Given the spirit of this thread, perhaps we should start to indulge in some of the setups that we all know that work. It's pretty clear that Order Flow Analytics is nothing but an attempt to profit off what MD already does.

Watched the webinar, the chart they use is the same as the one I posted nothing more then a 6 tick reversal chart/pnf chart. Instead of calling the the net bid ask trades delta, her refers to them as COT. What is not shown in this video is that supply or demand will often be tested multiple times which is why it is important to plan your areas and not trade using this type of chart blindly. Matt Fahmie has posted some great setups here for those who are interested. Order Flow: 6 Tick Reversal Patterns Edit. The only difference I see here from a Market Delta PNF chart and OFA's software is that they offer the ability to hook cumulative delta since trade execution.

I don't understand how someones software will help you get 1-2 tick better entry. You need to decide where you want to do business and each entry must be taken into the context of everything else that is going on i.e. risk, reward, and probability of success. What I will say is that if you look at volume at a micro level, if volume is significant, you can at times consider this a wall to lean on but you have to be disciplined about this in the sense that if that wall is breached you must accept failure. One thing to watch for is that when volume is light on a contract it can throw you off since you are used to seeing large prints when the market is active. Good example of a top. The number of contracts traded at these higher prices is pretty significant so if you are shorting below these levels, you can try to play the card that this volume will act as a wall to support your trade, since one time frame has responded here and will likely respond again at these prices given the opportunity. Additionally the decrease in cumulative delta is indicative that sellers are becoming more aggressive or buyers are trying to exit. What else is worth watching here is that any bulls purchasing between 10:06 and 10:32 might be thinking that they got a good fill shown by the limited amount of trade at the 1108.75 level, well the market will not give you a good price, if you get one either you are a very good trader, are lucky or you just got caught into a trap. Looking at the volume at 10:54 notice that 1108.75 has the most volume here, to me this looks like bulls realizing they are wrong and running for the exit. As you can see there is a TON of information here, almost too much which is why it's only worth looking at when trying to catch a reversal or attempting to find out what is happening within a trading range. Here is a good example IMO, of using cumulative delta. If you look at 12:24 market is -62k, look at 13:48 market is almost -62k and prices are higher, opportunities like these false breakouts can work very well. But from what I have seen, delta is nowhere near as reliable to accurate volume.

I'd still like to know what benefits of cumulative volume delta have past the day time frame. The only use that I have found for cumulative delta is when we are making a new swing high/low it is a good indicator of knowing how hard/easy the market is capable of pushing over with respect to the state it was in that last time that level was visited (think a heavy rock on the tip of a pyramid, sometimes it's more lopsided then other times making it easier to push over). It's also helpful in determining how a trading range might be balanced even though price bars appear flat. If you look at pullback, say for example the market is in a bear trend, you will notice that even though prices pullback, cumulative delta will usually further increase in the direction of the trend, a pullback like so is usually a high probably second entry into an existing trend for that day assuming this isn't taking place at a major level of confluence. And as BlowFish has stated, for every buyer there is a seller. You have to consider too that positive delta doesn't imply real buying, think short covering. IMO, volume can be a lot more useful then delta. Looking at this chart, it's not surprising why we might have been stuck in trading range these past two trading days. Notice something about each swing high/low? While we are on the topic, have any of you explored looking at depth ratios?

I think the use of second feed is a misnomer. I forget where but from what I recall, it's been discussed that all the second feed is something other then the ES future which is why Urmablume sometimes shows screenshots of all equity futures showing the spike at the exact same time.

What if the second feed was just confirmation of intensity across futures representing different markets i.e. YM, NQ and Russell.

Even if you look at the peak, there is no way to now when that peak is in. This is something nice to look at, that is about it.

"Usually Leads". The problem is that sometimes it can whipsaw and for the style that I trade, by the time the cross over occurs can sometimes be later then where I would have already entered my trade. I've just found other methods of choosing entries to be better suited to my style.

"Usually Leads". The problem is that sometimes it can whipsaw and for the style that I trade, by the time the cross over occurs can sometimes be later then where I would have already entered my trade. I've just found other methods of choosing entries to be superior. One thing, is that it definitely works much better for trending markets then range markets.

No point, I've discovered the harmonic is only good to look at after the fact.

As for the second clue - I've noticed lately that you are posting that these spikes often coincide on the NQ and YM. Perhaps this is part of the additional input?