Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

wasp

I Want Volume (spot Vs Futures)

Recommended Posts

The issue with the volume correlation is this:

 

Lets just imagine the 95% figure was true.

 

 

But lets say that when you looked at the data you discovered the correlation was true when the price was running. When it retraced and did an abc or abcde then, at critical times there was a low correlation. So, if you were (say) using the movement noise measure (cause it aint a tick either) to assist your decision to enter ... it would be useless.

 

 

So a 95% correlation could be useless if the correlation was true at some times but not others - and the other time was the important time for you.

 

 

But I think that without evidence its just another example of bs made into a factoid by quoting untraceable "statistics." And I am not implying that the person quoting it here is the bs'er ... with such statistics the bs may lie a long way up the train of "knowledge" being passed from mind to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is interesting because I have just been reading hundreds of threads saying the opposite. What studies have been done that empirically show positive correlation between tic volume and the spot or even the futures market?

 

I did quite some reading myself and you are right that threads are contradicting. But so far I have not found a single post that actually threw in a well worked out study about this topic...which essentially leaves it as just plain gossip!

Snackly, watch out that you don't only process information that your mind wants to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirdly Tic volume. Knowing how it's calculated, I can't personally take it seriously. Even at times when there's correlation there most definitely isn't a sustainable cause / effect line (I bet non of these studies undertaken included granger causality modelling or anything like that).

 

I did a very quick and incredibly dirty granger causality test and the only hint I found was that tick volume is granger causal to the range of a bar. (am not persuing this further for now) Nevertheless I got a bit sceptical about the Granger method as it essentially only checks if lagged values of a variable help forecast another. Also the method gets a lot more complicated if regressions are not linear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GJ...it was really quick and dirty only deserving a place in the gossip corner! I used this guys toolbox. It gave me a relationship between the range of 15 minute EUR/USD bars and the corresponding tick volume for the bars. No futures, just plain data that I recorded.

 

Flojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats an interesting statement STJ.

 

Years back I used to trade Eurofx futures on a 5 minute and 1 minute chart. Knowing the potential that volume has in Index futures and particularly in stocks I spent a lot of time qualifying volume price relationships in eurusd futures.

 

In the end I came up with one good correlation but it was an indicator of manipulation. I'm pretty sure that what was happening was that the futures were being manipulated so that profits could be gained in the (much bigger) cash market as the two markets have difficulty at certain times of the day deciding which is the tail and which is the dog.

 

Based on that (isolated really) observation I'd ask how much light volume in the futures will shed on the stochastic darkness of the cash market. I must have another look at futures and see if the intervening 3-4 years has changed my perception of price volume relationships so that I can see something different.

 

Whatever, if you apply volume price relationships to anything qualify it very carefully looking for both type I and II errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The currency futures have a layer of bids and offers stacked which are arbitraged back to cash via the Block Trade and the EFP (Exchange Futures for Physical) facilities. Many retail accounts don't seem to understand this factor and believe that the volume is the be all end all. By way of explanation I will give an example. the market is say 1.2888-1.2889 in a 16 x 4 market. someone sells 22 lots all filled (due to a submarine bid) at 1.2888. the next quote is 1.2887 - 1.2889 in a 4 x 9 market. 1 lot trades down into the bid at 1.2889 and seemingly the market then shoots up to 1.2893-1.2894. The volume watcher would have seen volume come into the left hand side selling but the price action is now higher. this reflects the cash market where say 1.2893 is given and 1.2899 is then paid. What I find useful is not the volume per see but the pattern from the tic volume histogram that in MP terms I can associate with certain types of behavior. I agree with previous tail and dog comments. The only time knowing volume in FX is going to give you an edge is when you are a spot jockey and see the customer flow particular the orders coming from SAFE the Chinese vehicle or the Red Man (who is in fact a lady) the chief FX trader for the Russian Central Bank that is probably the worlds largest customers right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stack your charts FX futures + FX spot.

 

Use the volume on futures as a rough estimate, it's fine.

 

I would say that spikes in volume in futures fx can be used to estimate probable turning points in fx spot.:2c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but this is something that was in the latest SFO magazine.

 

http://www.sfomag.com/article.aspx?ID=1315&issueID=c

 

It basically says that a 1 period ATR is pretty close to a volume calculation.

 

So in essence range and volume are closely correlated (which most know empirically). When they are not, that is the time interesting things happen. When they are correlated and at statistical extremes interesting things happen too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.