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.

johnw

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:)

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%!!

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

    • I'm pretty sure that a Russian resident would say that recessions are real today. Their prime interest rate is 21%, their corporate military contractors are threatening to file bankruptcy, and sticks of butter are kept under lock and key in their grocery stores because shoplifters are stealing it in bulk so they can resell it on the black market. A downturn is cyclical until it turns into a collapse. I really don't think anyone will be buying-into this mess.😬
    • Well said. This principle is highly analogous to trading. Any human can easily click buy or sell when they "feel" that price is about to go up or down. The problem with feeling, commonly referred to as "instinctive" trading, is that it cannot be quantified. And because it cannot be quantified, it cannot be empirically tested. Instinctive trading has the lowest barrier to entry and therefore returns the lowest reward. As this is true for most things in life, this comes as no surprise. Unfortunately, the lowest barrier to entry is attractive to new traders for obvious reasons. This actually applied to me decades ago.🤭   It's only human nature to seek the highest amount of reward in exchange for the lowest amount of work. In fact, I often say that there is massive gray area between efficiency and laziness. Fortunately, losing for a living inspired me to investigate the work of Wall Street quants who refer to us as "fishfood" or "cannonfodder." Although I knew that we as retail traders cannot exploit execution rebates or queues like quants do, I learned that we can engage in automated scalp, swing, and trend trading. The thermonuclear caveat here, is that I had no idea how to write code (or program) trading algorithms. So I gravitated toward interface-based algorithm builders that required no coding knowledge (see human nature, aforementioned). In retrospect, I should never have traded code written by builder software because it's buggy and inefficient. However, my paid subscription to the builder software allowed me to view the underlying source code of the generated trading algo--which was written in MQL language. Due to a lack of customization in the builder software, I inevitably found myself editing the code. This led me to coding research which, in turn, led me to abandoning the builder software and coding custom algo's from scratch. Fast forward to the present, I can now code several trading strategies per day across 2 different platforms. Considering how inefficient manual backtesting is, coding is a huge advantage. When a new trading concept hits me, I can write the algo, backtest it, and optimize it within an hour or so--across multiple exchanges and symbols, and cycle through hundreds of different settings for each input. And then I get pages upon pages of performance metrics with the best settings pre-highlighted. Having said all of this, I am by no means an advanced programmer. IMHO, advanced programmers write API gateways, construct their own custom trading platforms, use high end computers with field programmable gateway array chips, and set up shop in close proximity to the exchanges. In any event, a considerable amount of work is required just to get toward the top of the "fishfood"/"cannonfodder" pool. Another advantage of coding is that it forces me to write trade entry and exit conditions (triggers) in black & white, thereby causing me to think microscopically about my precise trade trigger conditions. For example, I have to decide whether the algo should track the slope, angle, and level of each bar price and indicator to be used. Typing a hard number like 50 degrees of angle into code is a lot different than merely looking at a chart myself and saying, that's close enough.  Code doesn't acknowledge "maybe" nor "feelings." Either the math (code) works (is profitable) or doesn't work (is a loser). It doesn't get angry, sad, nor overly optimistic. And it can trade virtually 24 hours per day, 5 days per week. If you learn to code, you'll eventually reach a point where coding an algo that trades as you intended provides its own sense of accomplishment. Soon after, making money in the market merely becomes a side effect of your new job--coding. This is how I compete, at least for now, in this wide world of trading. I highly recommend it.  
    • VRA Vera Bradley stock watch, pull back to 5.08 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?VRA
    • MU Micron stock watch, pull back to 102.83 gap support area with high trade quality at https://stockconsultant.com/?MU
    • ACLX Arcellx stock watch, trending at 84.6 support area with bullish indicators at https://stockconsultant.com/?ACLX
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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