Without knowing the volume you created the chart in I would say #3 or #1 are the closest of them, if the chart wasn't created in Sierra or Ninja then they aren't accurate to begin with. The only software that offers them is Ensign, MultiCharts, Sierra & Ninja. Volume isn't consistent on each bar in other software packages. Candlesticks are a distraction anyway since they need to be interpreted or read on there own. #2 is a minute chart. If I know the volume I could tell you specifically which is which.
all the different types of bars... they just look different.. highs and lows are going to be the same for the same trend end points... so you break the question out, what can you see with one that you can't with the other? Not all chart packages will display volume as ticks... Time Bars: you can see the ticks, volume and price range Volume Bars: you can see the ticks, time, and price range Tick Bars: it's volume, price range, and time Range Bars: Ticks, volume, time... What will change is your geometrics if you draw on the charts and possibly your perception of something or another... so many questions, so incredibly much work to code up things and so little time.... Speaking of time, I have an indicator that I developed. It is based on 8 bars. It involves candle colors and the relation of volume higher or lower compared to adjacent bars... I got it from just watching charts and it is only useful in a specific situation, and there is more that has to be done after the pattern shows up to complete the transaction... there are 16384 combinations of the above parameters for each of the four bar types not counting the follow on pattern.. what are the chances somebody with a backtester or a data mining thingy is going to find such a pattern, find the follow on pattern, get them in the right order, get them applied to the appropriate situation and find out what it applies to best.... I'd say it's not going to happen any time soon, that's all I'm saying...
I use an amount of volume as it relates to the increment I trade inside, Intraday, Swing or Position. I also only use a single indicator not two. My method is both linear and cyclic.
I wake up at 6 am and trade from 7 am till noon so if that is what you mean by indirectly, yes I use time but only as a period I trade. None of my trades are based on the time of day. The time of day has no meaning to WHEN a trade sets up. I trade it WHEN it sets up not because it is a certain time of day. Your time based charts artificially skew your view of the markets. You like that, so be it. There are just others ways to view price. Just like some of us like the way HD TV improves the view of our programming. If you prefer analog black and white . . . that is up to you.
Sorry Smurf but Constant Volume bars aren't created at various time intervals, they are created in real time, as they happen. The are created naturally not artifically in your time based charts. This is why your moving averages are worthless on my charts.
1. The range of the bar is naturally based on the natural range of price within a specific volume increment. The time it takes to create a bar varies on the liquidity at any given period in the market. This is why volume makes a better bar because it is grounded on the natural flow of price. Markets are traded in volume NOT time or Range. 2. Correct 3. Correct Any you can't say which is better till you test it which you are incapable and unwilling of doing.
Allow me to clarify; Tick, Range, Volume, Time bar charts all show how price changes over time. The only difference is the determination of the time interval for each bar. They each show the highs and lows at the same price and in the same order but the Constant Volume Bar charts show the natural cyclic oscillations devoid of the spikes in the time charts, the inconsistency of the tick charts and the constant consolidation of the range charts. Simply the flow of price is smoother and easier to read for strength and direction.
Wow, how incredibly ignorant. Backtesting only gives "fudged" signals if you do it wrong and is orders of magnitude more efficient than forward testing. Take stocks for example... one can backtest a strategy on thousands of stocks over years of varying market conditions, to include OOS data, in minutes... while forward testing would take years. And there's no guarantee that the period you forward test on will be any more representative of future market conditions than the backtested data. In fact, just the opposite because forward testing is far more limited.
Careful, when he is backed in a corner . . . out comes the opossum. You can tell because he will start calling you names.