[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Kiwi »

"There is no evidence that volume causes volatility."

Attached, please find results which indicate otherwise ....

[Kiwi]

It is unsubstantiated to anyone lacking a "religious" view of it until someone provides "grounds sufficient to produce complete certainty." Its not about me. Its about the statement you made and have not supported.

The table above provides no proof of anything - not even a suggestion of statistical analysis.


Repeating that quote from someone who actually did the work:

"We test for Granger-causality between trading volume and price volatility. We modify the standard regression procedure in several ways. We take the first difference of the logarithmic transformation of each series to account for potential nonstationarity in the data. We isolate the time series structure of each series and test for causality using pre-whitened residuals to eliminate problems associated with autocorrelation in the data. Finally we test for causality in both mean and variance to account for the presence of time varying variance (ARCH) in both series. Our results provide strong evidence that price changes lead (cause) volume in the Granger-causality sense. There is no evidence that volume causes volatility."


I will leave you with that. If others are satisfied with your statement then fine - it takes all kinds to create a decent market.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Kiwi »

I will leave you with that. If others are satisfied with your statement then fine - it takes all kinds to create a decent market.

Again, you miss the whole point.

Nobody should remain 'satisified' with my statement. I encourge people to go take a look for themselves, rather than, rely on what others think, believe, post or do.

One of us actually 'did the work' using Excel.

One of us quoted the works of others.

- Spydertrader

[Kiwi]

The statement that Spyder made was: Volume leads Price. Always.

Always? Like: every time; never wrong; always??? There is plentiful evidence (see papers and searches quoted) that this is incorrect.

An excel table is a collection of (perhaps good) data and isn't evidence that would prove the assertion even in a weak form. It could be a useful test of one working on a strategy but how can it prove that volume always leads price.

Then Spyder falls into the trap of claiming that 'his work' is somehow better than 'my research.' Imagine how much stronger the argument might be if one had to do a little physical labour, maybe digging a ditch or even a grave would make the argument stronger?

Spyder, you have made a strong assertion and then you attempt to make it look like you are simply encouraging people to look for themselves. Come on. You are beginning to make as much sense as your mentor.

This really is one post too many or three or four - I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if Brownsfan removed it. Perhaps, recognizing that you believe it to be true and many others don't we can move on to something more interesting.

[Mr_black]

Price/Volume relationship is obvious in the trading fractal context boundaries

[Marsupilami]

Originally Posted by Mr_black »

Price/Volume relationship is obvious in the trading fractal context boundaries

I think I can see in the chart what you mean by the above quote. It seems to work for you as one can see in your various P&L statements of which I have no reason to doubt its veracity ( that sentence sounds strange, is this correct English, lol ?).

I would really love to see someone draw the channels, and more importantly, the rising and declining volume "gaussians" in real time. I wonder how many hundreds of newcomers on ET have drawn those channels, pennants, FTTs etc. and posted their charts at the end of the session and yet failed miserably to actually trade this at the hard right edge.

[thalestrader]

Originally Posted by Marsupilami »

I would really love to see someone draw the channels, and more importantly, the rising and declining volume "gaussians" in real time. I wonder how many hundreds of newcomers on ET have drawn those channels, pennants, FTTs etc. and posted their charts at the end of the session and yet failed miserably to actually trade this at the hard right edge.

Bingo!

How about Spydie and Blackie come by here this week and post some real time charts with real time analysis that provides:

1) Specific entry points and entry method, i.e. specific entry price and whether it is to be executed on a stop, limit, or MIT.

2) Placement of inital stop loss

3) A real time, before the fact explanation for the basis of the trade.

4) Update a trailing stop or otherwise communicate in real time a take profit level.

It would likely not be enough ever to convince me that price, rather than volume, is the primary indicator of where a market is going.

However, it would then allow a discussion that can debate the merits of their approach. Right now, all that either has provided is after the fact annotated charts and assertions, implied or explicit, that they are correct and profitable.

I've posted dozens of trades with charts here at TL in real time with entry, stop loss, and result - in real time, before the entry has triggered. All of these have had a clear explanation and basis. There is no need to learn a secret language or a new vocabulary. Nearly all of those trades have resulted in a profit. The few losses were small relative to the gains.

My opinion is that any approach to speculation that is profitable, repeatable, and teachable should be communicable at the hard right edge of the chart.

So let's see some real time volume fractal trend sequence completion trading here in real time.

I can't wait - James ought to sell tickets to this one!

Best Wishes,

Thales

[thalestrader]

Thank you my Good Tams,

However, I have a woefully incomplete understanding as to what I am looking at here.

Originally Posted by Tams »

I see price bars from an unidentified market in the top pane.

I see a volume histogram in the bottom pane.

I do not know what it is I am looking at in the middle pane. Is that a different time frame from the one in the top?

You ask if I see the result - well I see things, and I assume you are proposing, presumably, that I should be reaching a cause and effect conclusion. Yet you have not provided a complete picture. Would you please provide to us a screen capture of the whole chart, inlcuding indtrument, price and time scale, etc.

Also, as I am not at your level of intelligence, wisdom, and understanding, might we also have a few details as to what it is we are looking at in the above example.

Thank you again for your help,

Thales