Prof. Found some interesting comments from asptrader, any thoughts on the matter? http://forums.neoticker.com/showthread.php?t=984 Cheers
Very interesting discussion. His comments about âevery tick countsâ has some merit, but it will not have a great affect of volume/tick charts. If few ticks are missing here and there, the charts will pretty much still look the same. When I decided to switch to tick/volume charts, I did some experiments with randomly withdrawing some trades (ticks) from previous day, and then redrawing the charts. Both full chart and missing ticks chart look almost identical, and my trade signals were there on both. This would be an issue if letâs say 10% of trades would be missing, but a mere few ticks here and there are not a problem. Regards, redduke
Thanks to you and Skunk and Stealth - I use TS 2000i + an additional software. The latter one contains a "TSI" + "TSI Histogram + a "TSI Index Trade Filter". Again the latter one's formula is quite different to the previous two ones. Once I have the true Ergodic's formula from TS a comparison will obviously be easy. Thanks again. Charly
Once I have the true Ergodic's formula from TS a comparison will obviously be easy. Thanks again. Charly [/B][/QUOTE] Addition: Good page for indicators - not only TradeStation based: www.xeatrade.com
First, I would really be interested in asptrader's #2 reason. He is absolutely correct about Tick Charts. Once GLOBEX began aggregation of their tick data, any usefulness of those charts in the more active and volatile markets disappeared. As for Volume Bar Charts, I agree and disagree. I speak of Constant Volume Bar Charts which are slightly but specifically different. Plane volume bar charts, which some charting companies such as NeoTicker use, are invalid because they do not allow the user to cap the number of contracts or shares traded per bar. They allow the charting company to create the bar as they wish. Example: The user defines they wish to create a 500 volume bar chart and when the bar reaches 480 contracts an order comes through with 125 contracts. Most charting companys' throw all of those contracts on the current bar creating a bar valued at 605 contracts not the 500 that the user defined. MultiCharts and Ensign cap the bar placing only the necessary 20 contracts to the current bar and starting a new bar with the remaining 105 contracts. The key is to eliminate the variable. When asptrader speaks of "variables" it is the volume bar charts he speaks of not the Constant Volume Bar charts I speak of. The other side is the data integrity. Now I would be a fool if I said that the data integrity of all data providers were perfect. That being said, all one can do if they choose to "Trade for a Living" is to first use the best tools available to facilitate that. I happen to think that CQG and eSignal offer the best and most accurate data available today. At some point I sure hope someone come along to one up them though. CQG, in my humble opinion, is overpriced for what they offer. That leaves eSignal. I am not a fan of their billing procedures, tech support, customer service or management but they do offer a stable and reliable product. Now comes the true comparison. I've tested time charts and Constant Volume Bar Charts (CVB) for years and can say with full conviction that if one uses any indicators that CVB Charts are more precise and consistent than time charts. This is because the CVB charts eliminate the variable nature of time. As volume increases a time related bar grows in size and the size is disproportionate to the market. I have been testing CVB charts since I created them in 2003 and they are all I use.
Thx Prof. Intersting comments. Also, do you have any thoughts on range bars and their comparision to volume bars? Cheers
In my opinion, range bars are the worse. They require the user to define a specific range price will move before a new bar is created. Do you know what the range of any market will be during the coming day? Of course not. They work under the false assumption that when a new bar is created that price is breaking through in one direction or another and then will follow through in that particular direction. Price moves and is based on oscillations not break outs.
the professor makes sense and is logical only within the context of his system. it "seems" to make sense but in reality it is seriously flawed. When pressed, about automating the system--- he either doesn't respond or says " come see my class". im convinced there is lots of subjectivity to this supposed system. come on professor, just put the program on collective2 so we can witness it in the real world. regards, surf