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.

TinGull

[VSA] Volume Spread Analysis Part I

Recommended Posts

Just a quick point. As PP said 'pure' VSA as described by Williams does not pay any attention to the open. Williams does look at the previous close in comparison to the current close. In fact this is the basis used to determine an up bar / down bar.

 

He also looks at net change (last close -> current close) but thats a fairly secondary thing and not written about anywhere. Most of the information is there with HLC bars though perhaps not in as visually accesible form as a candle. Of course the only time that it is not is when there is a gap i.e. last bar close <> this bar open. Intraday not likely to be much of a problem. When there are gaps VSA may concider a bar an upbar where a traditional candle may concider it a downbar.

 

The thinking is that the close is the most imortant price point as it represents the result of the struggle between the bulls and the bears for the particular interval you are looking at.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached 15 minute ES chart from today and yesterday.

Just a short question on "no demand". I seem to see it every time the market starts going up, which can't be right, so if somebody would kindly straighten me out and show me which (if any) of my putative "no demand" bars are the real McCoy, I'd be most grateful. Tx, Taz

5aa70de0e203f_nodemand01.thumb.png.8230f0e184a2eca081abd4f4db236767.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See attached 15 minute ES chart from today and yesterday.

Just a short question on "no demand". I seem to see it every time the market starts going up, which can't be right, so if somebody would kindly straighten me out and show me which (if any) of my putative "no demand" bars are the real McCoy, I'd be most grateful. Tx, Taz

 

Hi. Thank you for posting.

 

Let's start with the most basic definition of no demand:

 

An up-bar with a narrower range than the previous bar and volume less than the previous two volume bars.

 

I have pointed to three such situations.

 

Now, there are at least two more things to consider that the basic definition does not;

 

* Price: We would like to see the close in the High, middle or low of the bar. Tradeguider uses only the middle and low in its definition.

 

* Confirming action: Is the next bar down. This is tricky and a sticking point for some. The next bar down confirms the sign, but again, by definition the sign does not need confirmation from the next bar. TG waits for confirmation before placing a sign on the bar. I too in my signs like to see the next bar close down and have a less than or equal high.

 

Joel Pozen will paint any bar with volume less than two that closes up or equal (if the bar prior is up from the bar two bars back) as No Demand and will paint it at the close of the bar. Hence one gets a lot of No Demand bars that seem to be "out of place". Also one gets No Demand bars on bars that have greater ranges than the previous bar.

 

For me, a bar with a greater range than the previous bar needs to have a close in the High, middle, or low not just anywhere on the bar. A close on the high, in the middle, or on the low would actually make the bar "No buying pressure" a form of No Demand but involving larger ranged bars.

 

A better definition to use as you trade would thus at least include size of the range (narrow) and location of the price within that range ( on the high, in the middle or on the low) with volume less than two bars.

 

To sum it up:

 

A bar with a range narrower than the previous bar that closes equal or up on volume less than the previous two bars; and is closing either on the high of its range, the middle of its range or the low of its range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<a href="http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ftse100ct5.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9920/ftse100ct5.th.gif" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" border="0"/></a>

blowfish,when you say on the vol 2xma. above i,m on a 15 min ma on the vol.are you saying use a 30 ma? tia.

 

No what I am using at the moment is a moving avergae of volume and I simply double that for a guide for ultra high volume. So if the avergae volume is 1200 contracts I will look for 2400. This is just for my programatic tinkering...nothing like just getting the 'look and feel'.

 

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a comprehensive over view of no demand PP :-)

 

One thing I have noticed is you may get what appears to be no demand immediately after what appears to be a seling climax (even if its only high volume and not ultra high). This happens often...very often in fact regardless of whether the volume was enough to stop the move or merely pause the move.

 

This is one of those subtle areas that sometimes is just not clear to me despite looking at this very issue on thousands and thousands of charts. It apears that all the particpants have done most of thier business in the climax and everyone stands back for a bar or two.

 

Intresting what you have to say about looking at the next bar PP. Often it will be flat or no demand or no supply. Another thing that often hapens if the pause is longer is you will get tests in both directions.

 

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a particular type of No Demand that I did not mention before and would like to say a few things on it now.

 

Check out the attached chart. Notice the No Demand near the middle of the chart. This is an exceptional type of No Demand bar because it is also a Doji. With a Doji I am not concerned with a narrow range. Nor does the close have to be in the high, middle or low.

 

For candle traders, a Doji is a bar that represents indecision. This goes well with what VSA teaches us. Although it is more lack of interest then indecision-a subtle difference.

 

Bill Williams talks about certain extreme bars. These bars, as it turns out, are Dojis with closes in the high or low of the range. He states that 95% of the time a market changes direction 1 to 3 bars later after such a bar. As VSAers, we put the missing piece together: volume.

 

Again, VSA does not technically look at the open. Yet, No Demand bars that are also Dojis are usually very strong signs of weakness. This is one reason I like to look at the open. The other being WRBs.

 

The astute among you will note that this bar actually closes LOWER than the previous bar. However, it is a buying bar (positional relationship) and thus a No Demand bar.

5aa70e4d471da_post260.thumb.PNG.586f47f6d20cfb200a34975b323adb38.PNG

Edited by mister ed
Add back chart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a comprehensive over view of no demand PP :-)........Intresting what you have to say about looking at the next bar PP. Often it will be flat or no demand or no supply. Another thing that often hapens if the pause is longer is you will get tests in both directions.

 

cheers.

 

As I have said, this is a fuzzy area and can turn many people off.

 

It is my understanding that TG paints the No Demand Sign after the bar after the actual No Demand bar. The sign is simply placed back one bar.

 

My software will immediately place the No Demand sign if the open of the next bar is lower than the No Demand bar and the bar has not made a higher high. If, however, the bar trades such that the last price is above or equal to the close of the No Demand bar, the sign will disappear. It then re-appears if the bar moves lower. Once a higher high is made, it is gone forever.

 

But we need to remember what Todd says, "It is not about signs on bars, but rather reading the chart". Once you see an up-bar with a narrow range, closing in the middle, and volume less than the previous two bars, you know you have the technical definition of No Demand. Sign or no sign. That is why Joel Pozen simply places the sign at the close of the bar in question.

 

I think the confirmation is good however, and in practical use one should be doing both.

 

Here is an example of a perfect situation to illustrate what I mean.

 

* At 1000 est. You see a narrow range bar with a middle close on volume less than the previous two bars on the 5 min chart.

 

* At the same time, you see a narrow range bar that closes in the middle with volume less than the previous two bars on the 15 min chart.

 

* One could wait for the 5 min to confirm the No Demand bar, by the next bar closing lower and NOT making a higher high.

 

This would only take you to 1005. The 15 still needs 10 minutes to confirm. But if there is weakness in the background (high volume bars closing up with the next bar down, for example) you have all the evidence you need to take a short on the 5. So one timeframe you are using chart reading skill alone and on the other you are still using chart reading skills but you have also added the confidence that comes from a sign (which is based on a confirmation bar, and therefore not part of the actual definition).

 

For those who have the book, you also have access to some customer only webinars. There is one with this type of theme in it. In it, they use a daily chart. As it is a daily chart there is not a sign on the bar at the start of the next day, but they point out it is a narrow range bar with volume less than the previous two bars and closing in the middle. This creates the bias for the next day's trading. If this next day meets certain requirements, then the sign will appear at the end of this next day. Now, to some this looks like it is after the fact. But those are the ones that are looking for buy/sell signals and do not want to actually learn how to trade...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this sounds a dumb question, i have not read through all this thread but this subject interests me as a firm believer of studying price action. Can this be applied to spot fx trading, given that we have no way of measuring true volume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cooter

If you use the "Search this Thread" box at the top of the page, and enter in "Forex", you'll see several posts in this thread that address this question already.

 

Might be a good starting point to answer your question.

 

Just an FYI...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached chart, which is my original 15 minute ES (permalink #252) annoted first by PP (magenta arrows, permalink #257)) and now by me (points A, B and C). The problem I see with both points A and B is that, while they may fit the classical definition of "no demand", the fact is, demand came in with these bars. Ergo, I would like to propose that we (somehow) come up with a new definition of "no demand" that would exclude these false readings which often come in after a selling climax, as Blowfish described (permalink #259). This new definition, however it is forged, should, I suggest, also INCLUDE at least some of the bars highlighted by my cyan downarrows, because they did seem to represent a loss of demand. Perhaps a simple addition to the standard criteria of "no demand" would be sufficient--they must appear after a buying climax, not a selling climax. Perhaps that's too obvious to mention? Perhaps there should be some either/or provision, such that a widespread bar must close near the low, while a bar that closes above its midpoint must be on lower volume and perhaps also close below the close of the previous bar in order to qualify as representing "no demand". I'm looking at my second and third downarrows (from the left side)--the second one has a narrow spread but it closes above its midpoint, yet it also closes below the close of the previous bar. Maybe that should qualify as "no demand"? The third bar is a real doozy--it closes on its low and it closes below the close of the previous bar, but it has a wide spread. Maybe that wide spread can be forgiven (not disqualify it from being "no demand") because of its other two points in its favor?

Just some ideas to chew over.

5aa70de2732d6_anewdefofnodemand.thumb.png.97299623742ca58dcc612d9661d4aef8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

steveshutts:

 

Unless you're observing the Futures contract, I wouldn't waste your time if I were you.

 

Volume info is at best spurious & most certainly unreliable, no matter what's bandied about from the tick volume crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See attached chart, which is my original 15 minute ES (permalink #252) annoted first by PP (magenta arrows, permalink #257)) and now by me (points A, B and C). The problem I see with both points A and B is that, while they may fit the classical definition of "no demand", the fact is, demand came in with these bars. Ergo, I would like to propose that we (somehow) come up with a new definition of "no demand" that would exclude these false readings which often come in after a selling climax, as Blowfish described (permalink #259). This new definition, however it is forged, should, I suggest, also INCLUDE at least some of the bars highlighted by my cyan downarrows, because they did seem to represent a loss of demand. Perhaps a simple addition to the standard criteria of "no demand" would be sufficient--they must appear after a buying climax, not a selling climax. Perhaps that's too obvious to mention? Perhaps there should be some either/or provision, such that a widespread bar must close near the low, while a bar that closes above its midpoint must be on lower volume and perhaps also close below the close of the previous bar in order to qualify as representing "no demand". I'm looking at my second and third downarrows (from the left side)--the second one has a narrow spread but it closes above its midpoint, yet it also closes below the close of the previous bar. Maybe that should qualify as "no demand"? The third bar is a real doozy--it closes on its low and it closes below the close of the previous bar, but it has a wide spread. Maybe that wide spread can be forgiven (not disqualify it from being "no demand") because of its other two points in its favor?

Just some ideas to chew over.

 

 

* Personally, I would never simply short on a sign of No Demand. I look at the background.

 

* I accept that a nascent trend may have an erroneous No Demand sign.

 

A couple things:

 

1. You can add these volume relationships: V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2) ; V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2); V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2)

 

Again, the idea behind No Demand is volume. Volume is activity and we are looking for little activity (by the professional traders).

 

Now let's look at the first two bars you have marked that is between points B and C. These bars are closing DOWN.

 

No Demand needs to close equal to or up. Or, the bar should be a buying bar.

A buying bar is a bar with a higher high and not a lower low than the previous bar. Think about this bar. The non-lower low shows support for prices, while the new high shows that resistance failed to hold. To many traders (retail) this is a sign of upside strength. New high ground from one bar to the next.

 

But VSA sees WEAKNESS where others see strength. Hence some element of "Upside strength" needs to exist. That usually is a up close. I add the element of a "buying" bar as well.

 

In addition to background information, I like to see things happen on the next bar. As stated in a prior post, I like the next bar to close lower and for it not to make a higher high. From this way of thinking, only point C is no demand.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steveshutts:

 

Unless you're observing the Futures contract, I wouldn't waste your time if I were you.

 

Volume info is at best spurious & most certainly unreliable, no matter what's bandied about from the tick volume crowd.

 

Thanks Milliard, i assumed as much!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I have said, this is a fuzzy area and can turn many people off.

 

___large snip____

 

Now, to some this looks like it is after the fact. But those are the ones that are looking for buy/sell signals and do not want to actually learn how to trade...........

 

It is worth mentioning that 'perfection' from a technical point of view just dosen't exist. Seeking it (the Holy Grail) is unlikely to help ones trading. Having said that we can strive towards perfection in how we manage ourselves and our trades but of course that's a completely different matter.

 

Anyway back to VSA yes there are fuzzy areas and sometimes I have to administer a good slap and question whether this searching for 'perfection' is actually harmful (Grailittis). I'm pretty sure its not and that my understanding of VSA can be improved.

 

Some things that where 'fuzzy' a couple of years ago are now pretty clear some things are still fuzzy. Actually I think at certain times the market just goes 'neutral' and it is ripe for a test (or will show no demand). Put another way it can still go either way despite strength/weakness showing in the background and then getting no supply/no demand.

 

I think Its all relative (especially volume) and that there are various 'big guys' at work with various agendas time frames etc. A shame really other wise we would just be able to look for background weakness - up thrust /no demand and short knowing that the trade would be a winner every time :-)

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shure Pivot... who cares what name we asign to the money...

 

Please answer me this question to this poor left brained man : The core concept of VSA could be volume divergence ? thanks Walter.

 

Volume Spread Analysis goes far beyond that. Yet divergence does play a role.

 

First we should define "Bullish and Bearish" volume:

 

1. Bullish volume is increasing volume on up-moves and decreasing volume on down-moves.

 

2. Bearish volume is increasing volume on down-moves and decreasing volume on up-moves.

 

Now we can incorporate the concept of The path of least resistance:

 

* It takes an increase of buying (demand), on up-days or bars, to force the market up.

 

* It takes an increase of selling (supply), on down-days or bars , to force the market down.

 

The appearance of No Demand (low volume) on an up-move, shows little or no buying. Which means, if there is no trading going on in one direction, the path of least resistance is generally in the opposite direction.

 

The appearance of No Supply (low volume) on a down-move shows little or no selling pressure. Which means, if there is no trading going on in one direction, the path of least resistance is generally in the opposite direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walt,

 

If you wanted a little soundbite to some things up. It is more about effort vs result - though I don't think Williams specifically put it like that ever. There are half a dozen to a dozen 'core principles' most revolve around price moving or not moving with effort (volume) or no effort (little volume).

 

So a couple of examples. Price advancing on declining volume = weakness (no 'pro' support for the move)

Price declining rapidly (wide bar) on climatic volume but closing up.

 

VSA is based on Wycoff's ideas regarding acumulation/distribution and volume however it does go a fair way further.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached 15 minute ES chart. I'm not sure what the proper definition of "upthrust" is, but I show [at vertical dotted magenta lines] what I consder to be two types of upthrusts--one that ends on the high, and one that ends on the low. In both cases, the highs of the bar were the highs of that pivot cycle, and prices dropped significantly afterwards. In both cases, the highs of the bar pierced the resistance formed by the previous bars. In both cases, the volume was higher than previous bars, but still below the average volume (represented by the yellow line of the 50 period moving average of volume). My thinking is that the volume is just enough to get the retail traders excited, and sucker them into going long at just exactly the wrong time, but not so high that the pros are throwing alot of money at this game of deception.

 

Comments welcome.

 

As an added attraction, I'm sure you'll notice some beauiful "No Demand" bars on either side of these Upthrusts.

5aa70de405825_upthruststwotypes.thumb.png.1822835607db60bbd9758473669cf262.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tasuki,

 

In my opinion, the first one is not an upthrust, just the second one. Un upthrust should close near the low or at best in the middle. The first marked bar closed on the high, surpassed the previous highs with volume higher then the previous three bars. At this time it looks to me like an effort to rise. Since the next bar was down and closing on the low, followed by an no demand bar, it was an effort with no result. Some weakness came allready in at the 8:15 bar, narrow spread with ultra high volume.

 

Hope, there are comming more comments from the specialists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habi is correct in what he pointed out strictly speaking the first bar is not an upthrust as it closed high.

 

However you are also partly correct.... if you take that first bar and the one immediately following it the overall price action is a move up to test that area and then price falls back. Personally I would rather price falls back to the low of the first bar rather than mid (or even below it i.e. a key reversal).

 

Personally I try and look at he 'ebb and flow' of price and volume. Also remember that the close is entirely dependant on how you 'sample' price (i.e. what time frame you are using).

 

Actually time I think is a valuable component when actually trading for example if you are anticipating strength to continue and it hasn't shown up in N bars then its probably time to re-evaluate. A subject for another post but It is pretty valuable I think despite not being 'core' VSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

habi and Blowfish you are both most assuredly correct. See attached 10 minute and 20 miinute charts of the same region as I posted yesterday. As you can see, on both a shorter timeframe, 10 minutes, as well as a longer timeframe, 20 minutes, the "upthrust" appears in its more classical form--closing down. What I am suggesting is that it is valuable to free your eyes from the "tyranny of the timeframe" and look at the "ebb and flow" of the market. Good call, you guys.

5aa70de40ef8e_VSA10minchart.thumb.png.86b945a563e44314bc6201e7ec5cb783.png

5aa70de41870a_VSA20minchart.thumb.png.c935f369e7938744dc872c2a82247cb5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Demand 301

 

Base Definition:

 

Narrow range bar closing up with volume less than the previous two (2) bars. p. 32, Master the Markets.

 

TG (signal):

 

Narrow range bar closing up with volume less than the previous two(2) bars. The close should be in the middle or low of the bar. p 153, Master the Markets.

 

Joel Pozen (Signal) No Demand & No Supply:

 

No Demand: C>ref(C,-1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2)

No Dmenad2: C=ref(C,-1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and ref(C,-1)>ref(C,-2)

 

No Supply: C<ref(C,-1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2)

No Supply2: C=ref(C,-1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and ref(C,-1)<ref(C,-2)

 

--Some Observations--

 

* Joel makes no distinction as to range nor location of the close within that range.

 

* TG uses some criteria that involves the bar after the potential No Demand bar.

a. This gives fewer "false signals".

 

* Joel's method also captures some Test bars and other low volume signs like No Buying Pressure

 

* While there is one definition in TG, they actually have multiple definitions as each one creates a different dialog box in the software.

 

Pivot Profiler (signals) No Demand and No Supply:

 

NoDemand:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1),1,0);

NoSupply:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1),1,0);

 

NoDemand2:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply2:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand3:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand2=0,1,0);

NoSupply3:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply2=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand4:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand2=0,1,0);

NoSupply4:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply2=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand5:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand2=0,1,0);

NoSupply5:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)>ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply2=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand6:=If(C>ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply6:=If(C<ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand7:=If(C>ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply7:=If(C<ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand8:=If(C>ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply8:=If(C<ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand9:=If(C>ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply9:=If(C<ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand10:=If(C>ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply10:=If(C<ref(C,-1) and (H-L)=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand11:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply11:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand12:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply12:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand13:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply13:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand14:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoDemand=0,1,0);

NoSupply14:=If(C=ref(C,-1) and (H-L)<ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2) and NoSupply=0,1,0);

 

NoDemand15:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C>=ref(C,-1) and C=O and C=ref(C,+1) and C>ref(C,+2) and H>=ref(H,+1) and H>=ref(H,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply15:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C<=ref(C,-1) and C=O and C=ref(C,+1) and C<ref(C,+2) and L<=ref(L,+1) and L<=ref(L,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand16:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C>=ref(C,-1) and C=H and C<>O and C=ref(C,+1) and C>ref(C,+2) and H>=ref(H,+1) and H>=ref(H,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply16:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C<=ref(C,-1) and C=L and C<>O and C=ref(C,+1) and C<ref(C,+2) and L<=ref(L,+1) and L<=ref(L,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand17:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C>=ref(C,-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C=ref(C,+1) and C>ref(C,+2) and H>=ref(H,+1) and H>=ref(H,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply17:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C<=ref(C,-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C=ref(C,+1) and C<ref(C,+2) and L<=ref(L,+1) and L<=ref(L,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand18:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C>=ref(C,-1) and C=L and C<>O and C=ref(C,+1) and C>ref(C,+2) and H>=ref(H,+1) and H>=ref(H,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply18:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C<=ref(C,-1) and C=H and C<>O and C=ref(C,+1) and C<ref(C,+2) and L<=ref(L,+1) and L<=ref(L,+2) and V<ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand19:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and C=O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply19:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and C=O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand20:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply20:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand21:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply21:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand22:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply22:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V<ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand23:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and C=O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply23:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and C=O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand24:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply24:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand25:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply25:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand26:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply26:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V<ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand27:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and C=O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply27:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and C=O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand28:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply28:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand29:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply29:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=((H-L)*0.5)+L and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

NoDemand30:=If(H>ref(H,-1) and L>=ref(L,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=L and C<>O and C>ref(C,+1) and H>=ref(H,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

NoSupply30:=If(L<ref(L,-1) and H<=ref(H,-1) and (H-L)<=ref((H-L),-1) and C=H and C<>O and C<ref(C,+1) and L<=ref(L,+1) and V=ref(V,-1) and V=ref(V,-2),1,0);

 

 

-I wanted to place myself between TG and Joel. That is, I wanted more than Signs than TG but fewer and better placed signs than Joel.

 

-I have used confirmation bars, but any low volume bar, especially a buying bar (or selling bar for no supply), gets my attention.

 

-I have broadened the definition of low volume. I include volume equal to the previous two bars. Volume equal to the previous bar and less than the bar two bars back. And volume less than the previous bar and equal to the bar two bars back.

 

-Some UpThursts, Tests, No Buying Pressure, and No Selling Pressure bars are picked up as well. Thus, being able to READ the chart remains an essential element of success.

 

-It bares repeating, these are not simply buy/sell signals in and of themselves. Background information is needed (effort bars, WRBs, WSBs, High Volume bars with the next bar down............)

 

As VSAers we have to adhere to certain fundamental principles, but we should not let ourselves be boxed-in.

 

Case in Point:

 

The "ideal" Test bar will have an equal or lower range, make a lower low than the previous bar, close down and close on its high with volume less than the previous two bars.

 

NEWS FLASH: This is the definition of a Selling Bar. Thus, while the book doesn't explicitly mention selling bars, they are part of the picture. To call the bar a selling bar belies the actual strength that is contained within it. TG, therefore, may choose not to mention this to avoid confusion.

 

Take this for what it is worth. Remeber, we are not talking about buy/sell indicators. Understanding the Supply/Demand dynamics is essential. Questions and comments are desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • IMHO, the best feature of the Double Seven entry strategy is that buys and does not sell in equity-based markets. Large scale selling short in the primary stock markets requires a financed loan of shares from a broker, so it's less common than buying. Therefore, selling in a stock-tracking market generally isn't profitable--even where derivative instruments provide cheaper access to selling.
    • Another chart type... Footprint. 
    • I would forget about tinkering with lot sizes in the short-term. I only increase my lot size when it's justified by my growing capital (closed profit). Adjusting lot size on the fly would imply that I somehow know the specific probability of each individual trade succeeding--which I don't. So, I focus on the overall statistical performance of my strategy over every 6 months. This doesn't require anything clever. As an example, choose a chart structure (15 minute, 1 hour, Renko, range bar, etc.) where price swings are identifiable to your eye. Load a MACD oscillator onto the chart. Note that there are two MACD's floating around online. The "old" MACD uses a weighted EMA in its calculations while the "new" MACD uses a regular MACD in its calculations. If you're using the old one, focus on the main line crossing the signal line and ignore the zero level. If you're using the new one, focus on the main line crossing the zero level and ignore the signal line. These are your entries. Your dynamic exit target is the opposite crossover of whichever MACD lines you're using. Now for the most challenging part... stopouts. You need to determine the number of pips/points/ticks at which price traveled against your entry and did not return in favor of your entry for all trades. These stopout statistics can be collected with pen and paper, which I have arduously done in the past. This is much easier if you can code, backtest, and auto-optimize the stop level. The idea is that your dynamic takeprofit is theoretically infinite, and your stop is fixed at a level that is statistically favorable to you. Although this isn't really "money managment," it certainly manages your money.  
    • PRM Perimeter Solutions stock top of range breakout at https://stockconsultant.com/?PRM
    • PNR Pentair stock narrow range breakout at https://stockconsultant.com/?PNR
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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