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.

tomdz

Need explanation on TPO count

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Could somebody, please, clarify for me the concept of TPO count

(i.e. buying/selling TPOs)?

In the CBOT's handbook (http://www.cbot.com/cbot/docs/handbook.pdf)

on MP there in a paragraph on the subject (p. 35-36):

 

"We're counting TPOs because they represent market activity.

In this example, there are 70 above and 89 below (POC)

The imbalance we are looking for is on the side with the

least amount of activity because the longer term trader

is only a small percentage of total trade in the value area"

 

What exactly is meant by the "imbalance being on either side"?

The dominating buying or selling participant? But in this

case, this would mean that, in the latter example, sellers

are the dominating force for there are fewer TPOs on their side.

Which is exactly opposite to the correct interpretation, isn't

it?

 

Later on, we read:

 

"To explain more fully, the value area is primarily for traders

seeking a fair price ...."

 

OK, that is clear...

 

"...Therefore, the side with the most activity has to be

short-term activity. That's where the price in the value area

will be fairest. In other words, no one is giving up an edge

there."

 

And here I'm lost completely... I just can't figure the concept

out. Does it mean there is no long-term activity in the area

of most activity (89 TPOs in the latter example)? But shouldn't

70/89 TPO count mean that it is the long-term buyer who's more

active in the value area?

 

"Returning to this example, the side with the least amount of

activity is above the fairest price. Since the market moves up

to shut off buying, the longer term buyer was most active in this

value area."

 

Now, this finally makes sense to me (because of active long-term

buyers, the POC moves up resulting in increased number of TPOs

below it and reduced TPO count above), but seems to contradict

what has been said previously.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,

Noal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Noal,

 

Let me try to do my best to answer your questions. I am sure other MP traders can help you out as well.

 

Regarding TPO count, a TPO count of 70/89 means 70 above the POC and 89 below the POC. This indicates buyer dominance or buying control. The TPO count above the POC represents sellers willing to short above value while a TPO count below the POC represents buyers willing to buy below value. Buyers below POC view the markets as undervalued while sellers above the POC view the markets as overvalued.

 

Imbalance is created when there is more demand over supply or vice versa. In other words the bulls or bears express more confidence. A market trading inside value is a balanced market. A market that trades above/below value is imbalanced and seeks balance.

 

I am still unclear about the long-term, short-term activity. I would need to read the entire section from the pdf file. Value area is simply an area where both buyers and sellers agree on market value. It is equilibrium. Is the author referring to activity as volume or the number of transactions?

 

EDIT: made a slight error regarding seller vs buying control. Fixed now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still unclear about the long-term, short-term activity. I would need to read the entire section from the pdf file. Value area is simply an area where both buyers and sellers agree on market value. It is equilibrium. Is the author referring to activity as volume or the number of transactions?

EDIT: made a slight error regarding seller vs buying control. Fixed now

Hello and thanks for your reply. Actually, it's the same long- and short-term activity I'm mainly confused with. I just can't see how its analysis helped to reach the final conclusion.

The activity is measured here simply by the number of time periods (TPOs) used for trading a market at a given price.

I can paste the entire section, if you are willing to share your time reading it (it's not very long - just a page).

 

Noal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure go ahead and paste. I dont mind reading it... I may have something new to learn myself.

 

Short term buyers/sellers are traders like myself whose holding time is fairly short. In MP books, longer term buyers/sellers are usually referred to as the funds and insitutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you've seen how a value area develops, we're going to determine which longer-term trader-buyer or seller-is most active in the value area. Although they're both going to be active at various times in the session, we are looking for the net influence at the end of the day.

 

We are able to make this determination because the longer-term trader has a known behavior pattern when he trades in the value area.

 

The behavior pattern: the longer-term trader gives up an edge in order to make the trade. He's willing to do this because something that is fair in the day can be a bargain in a longer-term time frame.

 

In other words, when the longer-term trader makes a trade in the value area, he is buying low or selling high in relation to longer term value-not in relation to today's value.

 

The behavior pattern's effect: an imbalance in the value area.

 

If the longer-term buyer is most active, the value area is slightly too high because he is willing to buy at a slightly higher price. If the longer-term seller is most active, the value area is slightly too low because he is willing to sell at a slightly lower price.

 

How do you find the imbalance? Look at page 38 on the left.

 

Use the fairest price in the value area-the price that trades in the most time brackets-as your reference point. If more than one price trades in the same number of time brackets, choose the one closest to the mid-point of the entire range.

 

We're taking the one closest to the mid-point of the entire range because, as you saw in the example we just went through, the market uses the entire range to find value. It establishes parameters and then negotiates along the entire range between them.

 

Draw a line through the TPOs opposite the fairest price. Now count all the double prints above the fairest price and all the double prints below it. (Double prints refer to any row of TPOs opposite a price in the day's range with two or more TPOs in it.) We're counting TPOs because they represent market activity. In this example, there are 70 above and 89 below. The imbalance we are looking for is on the side with the least amount of activity because the longer-term trader is only a small percentage of total trade in the value area.

 

To explain more fully, the value area is primarily for traders seeking a fair price.

 

Therefore, the side with the most activity has to be short-term activity.

That's where the price in the value area will be fairest. In other words, no one is giving up an edge there.

 

Returning to this example, the side with the least amount of activity is above the fairest price. Since the market moves up to shut off buying, the longer-term buyer was most active in this value area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Noal,

 

At first I had trouble understanding it. Partly because I had always pictured insititutional traders or funds to be super traders and were never wrong. Well they may be right, but intraday traders who focus on small price movements certainly focus alot more on getting a better fill. While I may use a 10 pt stop on the dow minis these insitution can use a larger stop because of their holding period.

 

I'm pretty sure I have comprehended the page correctly but not 100% sure of this. Let me begin with a market profile chart below:

 

tpocountmpchart.jpg

 

The chart above illustrates the value area, poc, and TPO count for the emini Russell contract. We have a TPO count of 183/193 slightly favoring the buyers. Now for an intraday or short term trader the value area is what we perceive to be fair. However, for an longer term buyer if he decides to buy in this value area he is buying because he thinks the market is going up. In other words from his perspective he is buying low because he is focused on the longer term holding period. If he decides to sell in this value area he is selling because he thinks the market is going down. In his perspective he is selling high in relation to his longer term market perspective. Hence the statement:

 

The behavior pattern: the longer-term trader gives up an edge in order to make the trade. He's willing to do this because something that is fair in the day can be a bargain in a longer-term time frame.

 

In other words, when the longer-term trader makes a trade in the value area, he is buying low or selling high in relation to longer term value-not in relation to today's value.

 

Now, the author also states that the side with the most activity has to be short-term activity.... in other words no one is giving up and edge there.

 

Basically short term traders perceive price to be fair inside the value area. Day traders, swing traders, pit traders, etc... view this area as fair and balanced. So the most activity is found amongst this crowd who perceive price to be fair at value.

 

On the other hand, the longer term market participant views the value area differently. He does not view it as fair or balanced, a longer term buyer would view the same value area as a bargain. A longer term seller would view the same value area as too high. Therefore the area with the smaller activity indicates the longer term market participant.

 

This concept is a little ackward for me to grasp... since I believe the author is referring to the chart on the .pdf file.

 

valueareatpocount.jpg

 

Now there is still one line which I can not fully understand.

 

If the longer-term buyer is most active, the value area is slightly too high because he is willing to buy at a slightly higher price. If the longer-term seller is most active, the value area is slightly too low because he is willing to sell at a slightly lower price.

 

Is this indicating that the longer term buyer is buying enough contracts to expand the value area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this indicating that the longer term buyer is buying enough contracts to expand the value area?

 

I see it in a little different way. A perfectly balanced value area should have a normal bell curve shape with the POC fitting perfectly in the middle. Now, because of the longer-term activity presence (but not strong enough to move the entire value area to a different level), this curve becomes distorted and the POC moves somewhat higher or lower (depending on who's driving it) while the value's limits remain untouched.

 

As for me, I don't really understand this line:

 

The imbalance we are looking for is on the side with the least amount of activity because the longer-term trader is only a small percentage of total trade in the value area.

 

How can the imbalance be on one of the sides? As my understanding goes, imbalance can be either on both sides (too much on one side and to little on the other) or there isn't any. But according to the text we are looking for imbalance on the side with the least amount of activity... What exactly does it mean?

 

Moreover, why would we focus on the side with the least amount of activity? I'm not sure if I'm getting this correctly, but it seems to me that the author divides the value area in two parts - the one with the smaller number of TPOs is assumed to be dominated by the long-term traders, and the other by the short-term traders. As this strict division wasn't awkward enough, if we applied it to the example, it would basically mean it's the long-term seller who's more active in the value area: 89 TPOs below POC are short-term trades and 70 TPOs above represent long-term participant (the one we are trying to analyse), hence it has to be the seller because he is doing his bussiness above the fairest price (the POC). Obviously, 70/89 TPO count favors the buyer if interpreted correctly, so there has to be some error in my logic (though I can't say where)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me, I don't really understand this line:

 

The imbalance we are looking for is on the side with the least amount of activity because the longer-term trader is only a small percentage of total trade in the value area.

 

How can the imbalance be on one of the sides? As my understanding goes, imbalance can be either on both sides (too much on one side and to little on the other) or there isn't any. But according to the text we are looking for imbalance on the side with the least amount of activity... What exactly does it mean?

 

I spent some time thinking about that one... and honestly I was like "what???" over and over again. Did Steidlmayer write the packet? Because the writing is very unclear and hard to interpret.

 

From my own interpretation, I believe the author is saying that the majority of transactions take place among short term traders and floor traders intraday. Transactions or activity is different from volume. Which is why I believe when the author mentions activity, I think he is referring to transactions. Because these short term traders place most of the activity between price levels where the market is in value, the side with the most activity represents short term traders. The side with the least activity represents long term traders because their perception of value is different from short term traders. While a short term trader may see the value area as a price region of fair value, a longer term trader may see it as a bargain or overvalued.

 

Of course this is not to say I agree with the author. I do not fully understand why the author would need to include such a phrase in the book.. it seems to just confuse the heck out of me. It also seems extremely irrelevant in my opinion. Maybe someone can clear this up for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume we've got 20 TPOs above the POC and 80 TPOs below (to make the situation clearer). Obviously, the majority of value is rested below the POC, hence we assume the short-time traders are trading on that side. The trades made on the other (top) side come as a result of the competition between the long- and short-term traders within the value area. The short-term participants don't trade on that side (the price gets too high for them so they withdraw from the competition and go back to their region), but the latter is concidered a bargain by the long-term traders. And because the prices auctioned higher due to the competition, it must have been the long term-buyer who was responsible for that move.

 

Do you think this is what the author could have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noal,

 

That is initially what I had in mind also. But the thing I dont understand is how can one claim that the longer term buyer bought above the POC. How can one prove this? I guess if you stared at tape all day long you might be able to spot big lot buyers above the POC but this is not 100% guaranteed. There are plenty of big short term traders as well. This whole section in the .pdf file is very unclear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read through this entire thread, but think I got the jist of the discussion. I just wanted to add my understanding of the TPO count.

 

Floor traders seeks balance (or fair price) in a market to facilitate trade between buyers and sellers. Floor traders control the value area, because that's the price region that indicates fair price. When the TPO count below the POC is higher than the TPO count above the POC, that indicates that an imbalance exists with buyers being more dominant. When the TPO count above the POC is higher than the TPO count below the POC, that indicates that an imbalance exists with sellers being more dominant. When an imbalance exists according to the TPO count in a rotational day, I immediately start thinking about the inventory of floor traders, i.e. their short and long inventory. The imbalance in the TPO count tells me that floor traders are either too long (have too many long positions) or too short (have too many short positions). So the behavior I would expect from floor traders is to either start selling/buying in order to balance their inventory. Floor traders are expected to buy if they are too short and sell if they are too long. This is similar to a daytrader having a short position and needing to cover at some point during the day. Since the longer timeframe does not usually trade in the value area (it is not their expected behavior), their action in the value area is negligible. The TPO count is just one component of Market Profile and it needs to be considered within the context of the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't read through this entire thread, but think I got the jist of the discussion. I just wanted to add my understanding of the TPO count.

 

Floor traders seeks balance (or fair price) in a market to facilitate trade between buyers and sellers. Floor traders control the value area, because that's the price region that indicates fair price. When the TPO count below the POC is higher than the TPO count above the POC, that indicates that an imbalance exists with buyers being more dominant. When the TPO count above the POC is higher than the TPO count below the POC, that indicates that an imbalance exists with sellers being more dominant. When an imbalance exists according to the TPO count in a rotational day, I immediately start thinking about the inventory of floor traders, i.e. their short and long inventory. The imbalance in the TPO count tells me that floor traders are either too long (have too many long positions) or too short (have too many short positions). So the behavior I would expect from floor traders is to either start selling/buying in order to balance their inventory. Floor traders are expected to buy if they are too short and sell if they are too long. This is similar to a daytrader having a short position and needing to cover at some point during the day. Since the longer timeframe does not usually trade in the value area (it is not their expected behavior), their action in the value area is negligible. The TPO count is just one component of Market Profile and it needs to be considered within the context of the market.

 

Well put, Ant.

 

 

I can't bring myself to read the CBOT manual, because, as the saying goes....don't ask a barber if you need a haircut.

 

I may be wrong- but I don't like reading "official" material put out by a trade board (or brokerage for that matter) on how to trade. Conflict of interest.

 

They truly do not want the masses to succeed, because then the consistent winners who pay an arm and leg for their seats and memberships....would no longer be the winners...and wouldn't be members anymore....so that would cause a huge drop in revenue for the board of trade....

 

The individual, non-member trader is on their own...and we are expected by them to lose. We are expected to be marks in their shell game.

 

My opinion if course. Be advised-I am slightly cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic:

 

Quite honestly i have no idea where most of CBOT's revenue comes from.

I guess though commissions are a big part of it. Probably also a bit from selling data and fees for brokers.

 

The longer a trader sticks around the more commissions he generates for the BOT.

 

How much the members contribute? I haven't got a clue, maybe so much that your argument is valid.

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

    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • NFLX Netflix stock watch, local support and resistance areas at 838.12 and 880.5 at https://stockconsultant.com/?NFLX
    • Date: 8th April 2025.   Markets Rebound Cautiously as US-China Tariff Tensions Deepen     Global markets staged a tentative recovery on Tuesday following a wave of volatility sparked by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. The Asia-Pacific region showed signs of stability after a chaotic start to the week—though some pockets remained under pressure. Taiwan’s Taiex dropped 4.4%, dragged lower by losses in tech heavyweight TSMC. The world’s largest chipmaker fell another 4% on Tuesday and has now slumped 13.5% since April 2, when US President Donald Trump first unveiled what he called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.   However, broader sentiment across the region turned more positive, with several markets rebounding sharply after Monday’s dramatic sell-offs. Japan’s Nikkei 225 surged over 6% in early trading, rebounding from an 18-month low. South Korea’s Kospi rose marginally, and Australia’s ASX 200 gained 1.9%, driven by strength in mining stocks. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 1.6%, though still far from recovering from Monday’s 13.2% crash—its worst day since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China’s Shanghai Composite added 0.9%.   In Europe, DAX and FTSE 100 are up more than 1% in opening trade. EU Commission President von der Leyen repeated yesterday that the EU had offered reciprocal zero tariffs on manufactured goods previously and continues to stand by that offer. Others are also trying again to talk to Trump to get some sort of agreement that limits the impact.   Much of the rally appeared to be driven by dip-buying, as well as hopes that the intensifying trade war could still be defused through negotiations.   China Strikes Back: ‘We Will Fight to the End’   Tensions reached a boiling point after Trump threatened to impose an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing rolled back its retaliatory measures by April 8. ‘If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow... the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%,’ Trump declared on social media.   If implemented, the new tariffs would bring total US duties on Chinese goods to a staggering 124%, factoring in the existing 20%, the 34% recently announced, and the proposed 50%.   In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a stern warning, stating: ‘The US threat to escalate tariffs is a mistake on top of a mistake... If the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.’ The ministry also called for equal and respectful dialogue, though signs of compromise on either side remain scarce.   Beijing acted quickly to contain a market fallout. State funds intervened to support equities, and the People’s Bank of China set the yuan fixing at its weakest level since September 2023 to boost export competitiveness. Additionally, five-year interest rate swaps in China fell to their lowest levels since 2020, indicating potential for further monetary easing.   Trump Talks Tough on EU Too   Trump’s hardline approach extended beyond China. Speaking at a press conference, he rejected the European Union’s offer to eliminate tariffs on cars and industrial goods, accusing the bloc of ‘being very bad to us.’ He insisted that Europe would need to source its energy from the US, claiming the US could ‘knock off $350 billion in one week.’   The EU, meanwhile, backed away from a proposed 50% retaliatory tariff on American whiskey, opting instead for 25% duties on selected US goods in response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.     Volatile Wall Street Adds to the Drama   Wall Street experienced wild swings on Monday as investors processed the rapidly evolving trade conflict. The S&P 500 briefly fell 4.7% before rebounding 3.4%, nearly erasing its losses in what could have been its biggest one-day jump in years—if it had held. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank by as much as 1,700 points early in the day but later climbed nearly 900 points before closing 349 points lower, down 0.9%. The Nasdaq ended up 0.1%.   The brief rally was fueled by a false rumour that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs—rumours that the White House quickly labelled ‘fake news.’ The market's sharp reaction underscored how desperate investors are for any sign that tensions might ease.   Oil Markets in Focus: Goldman Sachs Revises Forecasts   Crude prices also reflected the uncertainty, with US crude briefly dipping below $60 per barrel for the first time since 2021. As of early Tuesday, Brent crude was trading at $64.72, while WTI hovered around $61.26.   Goldman Sachs, in a note dated April 7, lowered its average price forecasts for Brent and WTI through 2025 and 2026, citing mounting recession risks and the potential for higher-than-expected supply from OPEC+.       Under a base-case scenario where the US avoids a recession and tariffs are reduced significantly before the April 9 implementation date, Goldman sees Brent at $62 per barrel and WTI at $58 by December 2025. These figures fall further to $55 and $51, respectively, by the end of 2026. This outlook also assumes moderate output increases from eight OPEC+ countries, with incremental boosts of 130,000–140,000 barrels per day in June and July.   However, should the US slip into a typical recession and OPEC production aligns with the bank’s baseline assumptions, Brent could retreat to $58 by the end of this year and to $50 by December 2026.   In a more bearish scenario involving a global GDP slowdown and no change to OPEC+ output levels, Brent prices might fall to $54 by year-end and $45 by late 2026. The most extreme projection—based on a simultaneous economic downturn and a full reversal of OPEC+ production cuts—would see Brent plunge to below $40 per barrel by the end of 2026.   Goldman noted that oil prices could outperform forecasts significantly if there was a dramatic shift in tariff policy and a surprise in global demand recovery.   Cautious Optimism, But Warnings Persist   With both Washington and Beijing showing no signs of backing down, markets are likely to remain volatile in the days ahead. Investors now turn their attention to upcoming trade meetings and policy decisions, hoping for clarity in what has become one of the most unpredictable trading environments in recent years.   Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report. Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Andria Pichidi HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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