Are we talking about the same thing? How a synthetic count of ticks, generated by a market maker, can possibly do anything of the above?
good question in trading nothing works 100% of the time so i try to look for two independent confirmations to increase the probability a little volume leads price...like all leading indicators we do not ,know unfortunately how much the lead time is.....sometimes i wonder why i even bother with trying to make money out of this crap
I'm happy that something actually works for you, I just have no idea why it may work You pointed to something called "volume" which is actually just a number of ticks, read "price changes". It has no relation to actual trading volume, unlike in the stock market, for example. Yes, some people like to think that it may serve as an estimation of real volume, but I would never base my estimations on something generated by a market maker. While prices are more-less equal at all brokers, "volume" is dependent solely on data feeds they provide. Read it again: brokers generate data feeds, you calculate the number of ticks in them and try to develop some trading ideas out of it. It doesn't seem like a wise strategy
it is not a strategy....you try to get hints where the market is going yes that is true...in the stock market i made lot of money seeing delivery volume this was in 2004-07 do wall street declare delivery statistics? i doubt it they are bastards
In your example the long bear bars equate to a modest increase in cum-BO changes. Price resolution/granularity is much higher in FX than in say ES futures. The BO is going to change frequently with no prints. What is the value of the microstructure of Pepperidge Farm or whatever when you’re talking about one dealer crossing microlots with Padu, extrapolated to their book? It’s nothing. You cannot even trust the dissemination of BO volume/ticks. It may very well be feed-related to whatever Metatrader server they use. WTF knows. Why is volume low during the London/NY overlap? lol