3dog: Thank you for pointing out my error. I kind of went nuts after reading your post and checked it out. When I found it to be true I starting feeling sick. I then went and setup two graphs of the emini. Top using the chaikin and the tick count and the bottom using the chaikin and the volume count. They looked nearly identical. I'm guessing either the tick count can be used as a proxy for volume, or the chaikin osc. puts a much greater emphasis on the average bar width than the volume weighting. I'm going to have to go back and try and understand what is going on. If the underlying assumptions are false then I may have to suspend trading for a little while. I'm starting to get a stress headache. Thanks again.
no pm, I think that if you look at the ramifications of what 3dog is saying, it doesn't invalidate your method at all. It just explains why there's such a difference in volume related indicators between the big contract and the mini. Volume divergence vs. price action has been a valuable technique in analyzing trends for a long time. And you've made it work successfully. I can't see how this is invalidated because you've discovered a difference in how the data is reported. If only price change is reported on the S&P, then you've also managed to incorporate a momentum factor through working with the volume figures. Mark
Don't explode, NPP Even tho what you've been looking at may not be what you thought you were looking at, that doesn't mean that nothing that you've been looking at has any value. You may just need to call Mr. Tweak. For example, I've been reviewing old charts using your setup but with a sto instead of the Chaikin and have had good results. Don't despair!!
One of the side effects of keeping a journal is stress headaches. Based on the growth of your bank account while using this system, I am wondering why you would try to analyze this. I find it amazing that all of these problems have popped up for you since making a decision to post your trades. Think about it. Just keep trading and spend your time developing accurate filters for the all the "recommendations and advice" you get from your following here in the journal.
I also agree. After looking at what works and what doesn't during all this time, he seems to have tapped into the flow, making the specific indicator at least partly immaterial. In other words, if it ain't broke . . . After all, some people use planetary alignment
If you guys want help developing easy language for TradeStation based on divergence, contact Joe Jogerst at www.tradingalchemy.com.
NPP, I think db is right. After this last year or so of trading this, you see the relationships that happen between the prices and the indicators and the hits and misses you've had and what happened when. You've optimized your head and your reactions with the SP/Chaikin/Keltner movements. But if you needed to, am I'm not saying you need to at all, but if you did need to change an indicator or two, you would adapt because the basic movements and reasons why stuff is happening is hard wired into your guitar strummin, keyboard playin brain. Just one man's opinion. And thanks again for starting me looking at price/volume relationships I had missed previous to your journal. jd
Too much analysis. This method could work even if you removed most of its elements. The key is not the divergence of any sort nor even the ADX. Think about it and I am sure you will understand what the key element is.
Why not clue us in to your observations, electron? If no pm is concerned about what he's doing at this point, and he's offered us so much, I'm not sure that it's particularly fair to give him something else to try and puzzle out! Best, Mark