Prof's method is not inferior in my opinion. If you think it is inferior, then that may be an unfounded judgement that you are making on your part to deal with a need that you have to judge. I deal with a paradigm that is pool extraction. Pool extraction is done by making a comparison of what is there and what is extracted. I use ticks/minute as a measure of the ES rate (this is a first derivative with respect to time in calculus). From that a person can measure his effectiveness and efficiency. Once a person has a level of effectiveness and efficiency, then he can turn to optimizing pool extraction. Optimizing is the process of seeing what is available and making one's strategy take that from the market when it becomes available. You are now working your way up to setting up your screens to be able to see the markets. You have no plan or method of trading. As you see in this and other threads in trading, the viewing, methods, and results are nominal. ET shows long term daily returns in the 1 point per day range where people trade very small capital and come and go over time. Largely repeated failure is being discussed and posted. You are making an error by using parts of my stuff. This would apply to anyone using parts of any one else's stuff when they are where you are in learning the trading process. FYI, people who are learning to be traders do best when they go through the process of acquiring any rational and logical system. There is no way that learning and "inventing" can be mixed successfully. Most inventing is done as an alternative to doing the work involved in a process. Reading books is an example of avoiding doing a learning process. Doing drills is an example of doing work as part of a process. Your first drill is a long way off.
Volume Bars are a perfect representation of price action not tained by time. No variables. I didn't say what I used the Ergodic to confirm, it isn't price, it's the oscillations. Price bottoms and tops usually occur before the oscillation so the oscillation confirmes that price has made a top or bottom. Then one just needs to see if that top or bottom is extremem or not. The oscillations at both an extreme level and a minor level prefectly determine trend. If one can determine the perfect trend then one can specifically define the true strength and weaknesses associated with each oscillation. Trades are taken at price. Stength and weakness are determined by oscillations. Hey, if I can program a stupid computer to read and label a market in real-time, then a trader should be able to read it right? Remember traders have baggage (habits) . . . computers don't.
Just one....Multicharts.....or Ensign if it is more to someone's liking. Ask Prof how his method works with random numbers of contracts in each of his volume bars. I can tell you from experience, not nearly as well as it does with constant volume bars.
That's because it's gobbeldygook... Grobian voodoo... some look at this crap and falsely conclude it must be brilliant because they don't get it. But you're in good company! Several years ago some guys from Harvard tried for over a year to quantify some of Hershey's crap but got nowhere, except strung along. Search Usenet archives and see for yourself. I myself have tested several Hersheyean concepts and have found no edge.
No need to disrespect the eggheads at Harvard. A group tried to figure mine out too and couldn't but then a group from Stanford did it in 29 hours.