[ramora]

[quote=NYCMB;90352]

Originally Posted by ramora »

Hi ramora,

1)As volume of barx approaches Dry up and Pro-Rata of barx is not growing, your odds decrease to 50:50.

2) ---What do LTR and RTR stand for respectively?

3) How do you decide the pace figure for the X number of contracts per minute?
4) as next week is going to be amazing.

TIA

1. Yes, that would be correct.
2. Very sorry, should be Left Trend Line and Right Trend Line. I will be more careful.
3. Watch time and sales. If you time the number of contracts over 30 seconds you can get a sense of the tempo. I also plot a 9 bar EMA of volume so that I can see is volume is increasing or decreasing.
4. Looking at the major indexes we are at a turning point. I have no idea if the major indexes will break upward or down but the opportunity for short term trading will be excellent.

Good Trading.

[ramora]

Originally Posted by ramora »

Something that has been very helpful to me is to 'differentiate' volume into 'velocity' and ''pace'.

Velocity = price * distance.
Pace (or tempo) = price * time.

ramora

Tams suggests that Pace/tempo should be "number of contracts traded * time" instead of "price * time".

He is correct.

Thank you Tams!

[NYCMB]

[QUOTE=ramora;89800]

Hi ramora

If you don't mind, i have two more questions for you in the peaceful and joyful Sunday morning.

1) I want to see Time&Sales happy ticking off trades with sizes > 2,

---I assumed "sizes" means "volume". Based on that assumption, there are two scenarios presented (please see the attachment):
a) You entered a "short" trade ->the trade got filled and you saw "2" in the T&S window -> you exited because volume isn't > 2.

b) You entered a "short" trade -> the trade got filled and you saw "3" in the T&S window -> you stayed in the trade and you saw 10 ->double "1s" shown after 10 ->Did you get out or stay? I don't think my little brain will catch up with the lighting speed alike volume changing in the T&S window.

2) Depth Of Market with pending orders above and below the last trade,
---There are ALWAYS 5 levels of pending orders above and below each trade. I'm not sure what you meant by that. Could you elaborate your points? TIA

[dkm]

Originally Posted by ramora »

Velocity = price * distance.
Pace (or tempo) = price * time.
ramora

Those definitions look very odd. I would expect:

velocity = price change / time

pace = no. of contracts traded / time

[ramora]

[quote=NYCMB;90361]

Originally Posted by ramora »

1) I want to see Time&Sales happy ticking off trades with sizes > 2,
you saw "2" in the T&S window -> you exited because volume isn't > 2.

2) Depth Of Market with pending orders above and below the last trade,
---There are ALWAYS 5 levels of pending orders above and below each trade. I'm not sure what you meant by that. Could you elaborate your points? TIA

My volume size > 2 refers to YM. ES would be a much larger number. My thought is to make sure that there are more buyers and sellers than just the small lot traders.

Looking at the Time and Sales attachment, it is impossible for me to determine if I would have entered based on T&S by itself. What is the Object, is the container complete, what is the context?

DepthOfMarket is 5 levels above and below, I am looking for a large number of 'patitent buyers' and 'patient sellers' and not just a few contracts trying to scalp in or out of a position.

In November at TradersExpo I had a learning breakthrough watching Spyder explain how he steps through a day bar by bar without using any sub-bar 'fine' tools. I am using the fine tools only at 'end points' as they mean very little in the center of a tape or channel. I has spent 'a lot' of time with fine tools before understanding tape,traverse,channel and object, container, context which are more important. You can make a mistake with the fine tools and still make money if you have the sequence correct. You can not make money if you have the fine tools and ignore the sequence.

Good trading.

[SK0]

Originally Posted by dkm »

Those definitions look very odd. I would expect:

velocity = price change / time

pace = no. of contracts traded / time

I concur with David about the definition though ramora gave a very good try to help see the nuances. I believe and hope I am correct that Jack talked about money velocity as the slope of a trading channel and categorized market pace into regions of volume per trading fractal bar. Damn, we have too many jargons to deal with already. Fortunately, there is no test for them.

[ptunic]

Re: Post #1467

Originally Posted by romanus »

In the attached there are two b2b2r2b sequences, one on 2/5, the other on 2/17. They both end in a signal for change, one with Jokari, the other with peaking volume and both with Pennant FBO. However, what came next in one case is totally different from the other.

1. Is this the matter of incorrect annotations? And 'something' indicates that the sequence for the non-dominant component of the slower down trend was completed in one case but not in the other?

I looked at this several times over the last week, I see one (imo) big difference that may or may not be responsible for the changed outcome. See attached chart:

On the 2/5 example, the lateral forms on Decreasing volume. On the 2/17 example, the lateral forms on Increasing volume.

Another (probably more minor difference) is on 2/5, the 1st bar of the lateral closes inside the previous bar. On the 2/17 example, the 1st bar of the lateral closes completely outside of the previous bar.

[romanus]

Originally Posted by ptunic »

Re: Post #1467



I looked at this several times over the last week, I see one (imo) big difference that may or may not be responsible for the changed outcome. See attached chart:

On the 2/5 example, the lateral forms on Decreasing volume. On the 2/17 example, the lateral forms on Increasing volume.

It doesn't appear to me that comparing the peaks at FTT's and P2's yields any additional data that would make a difference between change and continuation.

Originally Posted by ptunic »

Re: Post #1467



I looked at this several times over the last week, I see one (imo) big difference that may or may not be responsible for the changed outcome. See attached chart:

On the 2/5 example, the lateral forms on Decreasing volume. On the 2/17 example, the lateral forms on Increasing volume.

Another (probably more minor difference) is on 2/5, the 1st bar of the lateral closes inside the previous bar. On the 2/17 example, the 1st bar of the lateral closes completely outside of the previous bar.

Thank you for your response. It was determined that in one case the signal for change was and in another wasn't on the same trading 'fractal', and that rigorously constructing containers and gaussian lines based on the volume behavior inside those containers doesn't provide sufficient information to maintain fractal integrity. The context seems to be the missing variable. One would think that the solution would lie in being able to classify various contexts for the purposes of comparing and contrasting. However, that task doesn't seem to easily achievable, if at all. Attached is yet another (third) example of the sequence that looks like the previous two. One can say that the third context is the same as the first one based on how that sequence ended, but it obviously is not the same, based on what came before and after the sequence. In similar fashion, one can say that the third context is the same as the second one based on what came before and after the sequence, but it obviously is not the same, based on how that sequence ended. Therefore, it appears that we are dealing with three distinct contexts. It logically follows that context can not be a binary function.