ES .. the LOW of the Bar is More Volatile Than the HIGH of the Bar.

[Logic 10]

  Traduk said:

The structure I am referring to is Fractal structure which is of course from ticks upwards which manifests itself in various time frames.

 

Since ticks aren't equally balanced and aren't consistent on any chart they are applied to, how can fractals accurately be applied to them?

[zdo 20]

  Logic said:

Since ticks aren't equally balanced and aren't consistent on any chart they are applied to, how can fractals accurately be applied to them?

 

Excellent question. Thx

Raises an even broader question - how can 'fractals' accurately be applied anywhere?

 

 

 

 

PS ...sure would appreciate if johnw would show us what he was talking about to begin with...

[joshdance 10]

  Logic said:

Since ticks aren't equally balanced and aren't consistent on any chart they are applied to, how can fractals accurately be applied to them?

 

Perhaps he means from the "transaction" level upward. You mean that ticks aren't equally balanced as a function of volume; however, they are perfectly balanced with respect to number of transactions. Just as time-based bars are equally balanced with respect to time. And so on.

[Traduk 10]

  Logic said:

Since ticks aren't equally balanced and aren't consistent on any chart they are applied to, how can fractals accurately be applied to them?

 

So that there can be no confusion. I refer to a fractal as an observable turns from advance to retracement to advance. High\lows in common TA jargon with the definition of what constitutes a turn varying depending on personal taste. Fractals are the terminal points between range swings.

 

If the premise is accepted that fractal generation is from ticks upwards then in various time frames then I display charts which show the base level build through about four iterations of fractal size. Each larger iteration is watched for development from those below and relative to those above. It may appear overly complicated but as I have been doing it for decades, everything is tuned to fit and the charts just feed back what I need to see.

 

I do not truly understand your question. If I look at a new market I apply the principles from base upwards to find out what fits and adjust to what needs to be seen. The market structure (ticks upwards) dictates and I see my task as simply discovering and adhering to whatever it does.

 

The use of the base upwards cannot in essence be wrong because it is the market. Using the base and its iterations upwards also incorporates automatic adjustment for decreasing\increasing range and volatility. Invariably I can see all the little 2 to 3 point micro swings and all the others including the 8 to 10 pointers I am interested in up the 50 point structures that span a couple of days.

 

I started using this technique as none other was available back in the 80's with a pager and graph paper. It never failed then and hasn't since but I do wish I hadn't wasted 7 years and tens of thousands searching for the holy grail thinking that there must be something more complicated to trading:)

 

.

[Logic 10]

  joshdance said:

Perhaps he means from the "transaction" level upward. You mean that ticks aren't equally balanced as a function of volume; however, they are perfectly balanced with respect to number of transactions. Just as time-based bars are equally balanced with respect to time. And so on.

 

We've had this discussion before Josh.

 

I agree with your time-based bar assessment but traders and investors trade using charts "in" time, they don't trade time using charts. Volume is an inherent and primary ingredient in all charts and when you ignore it's predominant effect on price movement you do your overall profitability a great disservice.

 

You're stated previously that you trade using time charts and have a volume indicator that you read as well. I know a bunch of traders that do the same thing and are profitable. I'm not saying it doesn't work. It's obviously working for you and others. I am saying it isn't as efficient as a trading environment as it could be. Common sense dictates that anytime one must "interpret" anything, you open yourself up for potential errors. To error is human (emotions), that is common sense. I personally prefer to eliminate the human (emotional) aspect from my trading environment.

 

Tick charts are aggregated directly through GLOBEX so their order flow is dysfunctional to begin with. Even if they were perfectly accurate, which they are not, giving the same level of importance to a tick made up of a single contract verses a tick made up of a tick made up of 20 contracts is simply wrong from any mathematical level.

 

A previous poster said that 95% of the ticks are 1 or 2 units as a general statement, which is inaccurate as well. It all depends on the contract traded. Even if 50% of the ticks were 1 contract and 50% were 2 contracts you have half of your bars carrying twice the volume weight but you were treating the bars with the same level of credence as an indicator. This is not good nor consistent.

 

It is common knowledge that I am a vocal proponent of Constant Volume Bar Charting but only from a standpoint of accuracy and consistency. Traders tell me over and over and over again that when they apply their OWN method to them they see price movement more clearly, have more accuracy in their decisions, have higher win rates and bottom line . . . make more money.

 

Do they work for everyone? Nope. Hey, I know guys that like CRT monitors better than they like flat screens too. Go figure.

 

There are many ways to profit in these markets . . . period. Just never close your mind to something different. Even subtle changes in chart environments can make huge differences win rates and profitability.

[Logic 10]

  Traduk said:

So that there can be no confusion. I refer to a fractal as an observable turns from advance to retracement to advance. High\lows in common TA jargon with the definition of what constitutes a turn varying depending on personal taste. Fractals are the terminal points between range swings.

 

If the premise is accepted that fractal generation is from ticks upwards then in various time frames then I display charts which show the base level build through about four iterations of fractal size. Each larger iteration is watched for development from those below and relative to those above. It may appear overly complicated but as I have been doing it for decades, everything is tuned to fit and the charts just feed back what I need to see.

 

I do not truly understand your question. If I look at a new market I apply the principles from base upwards to find out what fits and adjust to what needs to be seen. The market structure (ticks upwards) dictates and I see my task as simply discovering and adhering to whatever it does.

 

The use of the base upwards cannot in essence be wrong because it is the market. Using the base and its iterations upwards also incorporates automatic adjustment for decreasing\increasing range and volatility. Invariably I can see all the little 2 to 3 point micro swings and all the others including the 8 to 10 pointers I am interested in up the 50 point structures that span a couple of days.

 

I started using this technique as none other was available back in the 80's with a pager and graph paper. It never failed then and hasn't since but I do wish I hadn't wasted 7 years and tens of thousands searching for the holy grail thinking that there must be something more complicated to trading:)

 

.

 

I'm right there with you on finding something that is consistent and not complicated.

 

Your expalnation cleared thaing up for me on how you view and use your charts. Thanks.

[joshdance 10]

Actually you might be surprised that on my screens right now I have 3 CVB charts, and 1 time-based chart. I find them all useful.

 

As to a "tick chart" (as opposed to a tick-based chart like CVB, range, etc.), I also do not see any advantage to using them over a constant volume chart. The assertion of some that "95% of ticks are 1 lots" or whatever it was is absurd.

 

I do disagree a bit on aggregation of ticks by the CME; what I will say is that depending on how the CME chooses to report transactions, a tick chart will differ. After the 2009 changes, for example, tick charts were different, as previously a 100 lot market order was reported as 1 transaction, even though in fact multiple transactions could have occurred. Now, however, a 100 lot market order is reported as 1 tick if it's matched to a 100 lot limit, or 100 ticks if it's matched to 100 separate 1 lot limit orders. Either way, a constant volume bar chart will not vary, and I see no reason to use a tick chart over a CVB one.

[Logic 10]

  joshdance said:

Actually you might be surprised that on my screens right now I have 3 CVB charts, and 1 time-based chart. I find them all useful.

 

As to a "tick chart" (as opposed to a tick-based chart like CVB, range, etc.), I also do not see any advantage to using them over a constant volume chart. The assertion of some that "95% of ticks are 1 lots" or whatever it was is absurd.

 

I do disagree a bit on aggregation of ticks by the CME; what I will say is that depending on how the CME chooses to report transactions, a tick chart will differ. After the 2009 changes, for example, tick charts were different, as previously a 100 lot market order was reported as 1 transaction, even though in fact multiple transactions could have occurred. Now, however, a 100 lot market order is reported as 1 tick if it's matched to a 100 lot limit, or 100 ticks if it's matched to 100 separate 1 lot limit orders. Either way, a constant volume bar chart will not vary, and I see no reason to use a tick chart over a CVB one.

 

CME isn't aggragating ticks, GLOBEX is.

 

Other than that, I Agree 100%!!

[joshdance 10]

  Logic said:

CME isn't aggragating ticks, GLOBEX is.

 

Other than that, I Agree 100%!!

 

You and I agreeing 99% is a first, I can live with that!