[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Kiwi »

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.

We live in a binary choice world.

Volume leads Price - Always represents a true and accurate statement, or it doesn't.

I've made a strong assertion (your words) which appears to directly contradict what you know to be true. In addition, my strong assertion appears to directly contradict both conventional wisdom and available scientific data.

As such, one can arrive at a simple binary choice. Either, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, or maybe (just maybe), I've described something of value.

As such, I encourage everyone to go and look for themselves because ultimately, the responsability for decision-making rests on the shoulders of the individual trader, and not with me.

If there is an interest (and to avoid taking this thred too far off topic), perhaps, I'll start a thread this week containing the specific instructions required to learn to see the sequences about which I have repeatedly spoken. For those less patient, a Google search should provide enough information to get one started.

- Spydertrader

[JBWTrader]

I am a little ignorant on Volume, but I understand price movement pretty well.

I actually believe that price movement and why it goes where it goes has very, very precise reasons. In fact the better funded algos/bot's know well ahead of time where price is going next and why....

the rate of change of this movement I do not understand except that price is tracking itself along several fractal ratios and hence when a certain fractal is lagging behind in time and or position , Price will accelerate to catch it up. Same in reverse when one or more fratal ratios are behind in time/position.

Now given The majors know where Price is going it will use volume to get there ie to overcome obstacles, to acclerate Price or deaccelerate price even to within one tick of where they want to take it.

Even though there are fractals of price in clear visual ratios it(not so clear when first looking as one has to find the common "pattern repeated across all frames of reference) makes to think that there must be these ratios also present in Volume (as Spydertrader alluded me to).

Bear with me re this thinking..I am investigating this so it is raw... If Price knows where it is going next and hence why then it needs fuel to get there. The fuel is volume...the rate of change of Price is linked somewhat to Volume how much volume is needed per unit of Price seems to vary and not always in a linear way (and visa versa ie a unit of volume can vary with Price).

Now as I understand it to using perhaps a poor analogy , when a car (Price) has a plan of where it wants to go from A to B it needs gas (Volume). There are times when the car (Algo driver (s)) need it to go faster and/or slower and this is a function of quite a few things eg Road conditon and obstacles, tyres and traction, and power all could be explained in terms of buying and selling pressure and the short to medium goals of Price ie intention.

Hence Price is linked to Volume and volume to Price. At this stage in my learning I would say that it doesnt matter which leads which...its like another analogy...A gun with bullets...the gun is price and the bullets are volume...the gun has a person who knows where to aim Price and has only so many bullets to fire...on the other side of the fence is another person with a gun who is firing back. Who is going to win..? one could say the one with the most bullets...however one could argue that its not the number of bullets but the number of shooters/guns on either side that have the same intentions that will win the short term war...this I guess plays over and over again in the markets...

Deriving Price volume relationships that are clear and can be used for trading I have only seen from Urmablume's work and Db's. I know they would argue that Volume and its marks are very important to study.

One can make money from Price alone and from volume alone. I have personally found that the rate of price change to the rate of change of volume is defintely not linear and hence more complex types of relationships exist between the two. How much gas or bullets get used to achieve ones goal matters only to the bigger players IMHO. The smaller guys have to pick a side and hangon by wheelsucking the best we can...

Again this was more an exploratory post. Nothing should be taken as concrete or valid. These are my thoughts thus far on Price and Volume...

I guess I have said Price alone has an intention but can volume ? This is what I am thinking about now...I guess its the algos that have the intentions and volume and Price are the outcomes of these intentions....Ill keep thinking on this...Thanks for the discussion.

All the Best
John

[johnjohn1hew]

I actually believe that price movement and why it goes where it goes has very, very precise reasons. In fact the better funded algos/bot's know well ahead of time where price is going next and why....

No formula can predict the next movement in price. Price is random and takes reasoning skills to decipher. Skills that cannot be mimicked by a forumla. It is absolutely foolhardy to assume that anyone holds such insight to be able to predict the next movements of a collective human mind 100% of the time.

[Tams]

Originally Posted by johnjohn1hew »

No formula can predict the next movement in price. Price is random and takes reasoning skills to decipher. Skills that cannot be mimicked by a forumla. It is absolutely foolhardy to assume that anyone holds such insight to be able to predict the next movements of a collective human mind 100% of the time.

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...html#post69453

Originally Posted by johnjohn1hew »

Price can only rise when demand is greater than supply. And in your case demand is greater than supply as the sellers realize that prices are too cheap and so they withdraw and wait for higher prices. If the buyers share this sense, then price will rise as they try to find sellers. Also, we can only call the demand present at any given moment "true" as we have no way of knowing the targets of the sellers (if they even have targets) until we reach them. Hopefully this makes sense.

See any correlations between the posts?

You are in fact providing a Price Volume Relationship Formula/Behavior !



p.s. I am merely pointing out the observation, I am not endorsing/disagreeing the truth, value, or completeness of your observation.

[johnjohn1hew]

Volume leads Price

What volume is, is not up to an individual's discretion. Volume is the quantity of contracts (or other vehicles) traded. PERIOD. Volume and price are instantly plotted at the same time as volume can not be plotted without a result in price and price can not be plotted without an appearance in volume. Traders make volume and volume is plotted at the same time price is created. Price is the price at which traders have traded. Price does not lead volume and volume does not lead price. Ideas of movements (which are opinions of the future direction of price) lead volume and price (i.e. traders' actions lead price, which are represented on the chart as volume and price). So one could say volume and price leads volume and price. When Wyckoff (or whoever stated it first) said that volume is the effort and price is the result, he was not pulling this out of his ass, he was stating the obvious. If you submit a market order to buy one contract you are adding 1 unit of volume to the volume bar and one point in price to the chart AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

Wyckoff, Livermore and the other price action (+volume) gurus realized the obvious and traded accordingly.

[Tams]

Volume Leads Price?

I believe a more correct description of the concept should be:

Past Volume Behavior Leads Future Price Behavior

[johnjohn1hew]

You are in fact providing a Price Volume Relationship Formula/Behavior !

The first person to give me a quantitative formula for doing this will be given a big con-grat-u-*******-lations! You did the impossible.

[Tams]

Originally Posted by johnjohn1hew »

The first person to give me a quantitative formula for doing this will be given a big con-grat-u-*******-lations! You did the impossible.

if you can describe it, you can quantify it.

if you cannot quantify a concept, your concept is either non-scientific, or incomplete.