Everybody hurts...sometimes...

Then by definition, your assessment of using charts to trade as dysfunctional and without evidence is exclusive to markets with a central exchange. Would you agree that large establishments trading fx use technical analysis based off charts? That being said, your statement should then rather be directed at the type of Market such strategies are designed for and not generally directed.

I asked some questions earlier which you answered with questions.

So lets throw it back at you. What makes you believe that time splicing market action and then giving meaning to those timesplices is helping you rather than hindering you?

I know the answer already - everybody else 'seems' to do it, or that is your impression.

Instead of examining this, you have taken this 'time splicing' concept - which applies just as much to volume bars & tick charts and not questioned it, yet it is the basis for all analysis that you do.

Do you not find this rather bizarre when you think about it? A whole knowledge industry of telling people to interpret bars without first giving an explanation as to why bars are the best way to interpret market data?
 
OK - SERIOUS QUESTION...


Why is no-one trading the 3 hour, 42 minute, 24 seconds and 234 millisecond timeframe?

If this would be nonsense - can someone explain why it's any less valid than 1,3,5,15,30,60, 1h, 4h, daily ?

Do the markets only respect these sounding numbers?
 
Personally I've always seen candles as a graphical representation that aids in digesting information rather than something that the markets respect or don't respect. It's about structure isn't it? It's easier and quicker to comprehend than a reel of a million numbers next to times :S
 
Last edited:
OK - SERIOUS QUESTION...


Why is no-one trading the 3 hour, 42 minute, 24 seconds and 234 millisecond timeframe?

If this would be nonsense - can someone explain why it's any less valid than 1,3,5,15,30,60, 1h, 4h, daily ?

Do the markets only respect these sounding numbers?

There are doubtless participants that trade 'custom' time frames as opposed to the 'standard' time frames more widely in use...and that is really the point, if TA is to some extent self fulfilling and participants act on price action triggers, better then to trade those more widely in use than not.

G/L
 
I asked some questions earlier which you answered with questions.

So lets throw it back at you. What makes you believe that time splicing market action and then giving meaning to those timesplices is helping you rather than hindering you?

I know the answer already - everybody else 'seems' to do it, or that is your impression.

Instead of examining this, you have taken this 'time splicing' concept - which applies just as much to volume bars & tick charts and not questioned it, yet it is the basis for all analysis that you do.

Do you not find this rather bizarre when you think about it? A whole knowledge industry of telling people to interpret bars without first giving an explanation as to why bars are the best way to interpret market data?

To answer your question, I don't interpret bars, I interpret levels. When examining the market in smaller time frames there is more data and more levels, as a result it becomes difficult to extract key levels hence, the reason I don't look at small time frames and furthermore, the reason I don't look at extremely high time frames as they show less data.

You assume too much DT. You would be better off asking before assuming because you only make an ass out of yourself. Your perception of trading is confined to the walls of your imagination. In regards to FX, which you have stated you do not trade, you are assuming it works as other markets, you are wrong.

The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about...
 
To answer your question, I don't interpret bars, I interpret levels. When examining the market in smaller time frames there is more data and more levels, as a result it becomes difficult to extract key levels hence, the reason I don't look at small time frames and furthermore, the reason I don't look at extremely high time frames as they show less data.

Oonu see weh mi a seh, see star. Yuh read higha time bars wen di price a lick di level dem an yuh affi brook dem down, hopen dem up soh an look pon di lower time bars fi get a hidea of wat a gwaarn inna de higha bar sinten dem. Puuure info an data inna dem ya knuh.
 
Oonu see weh mi a seh, see star. Yuh read higha time bars wen di price a lick di level dem an yuh affi brook dem down, hopen dem up soh an look pon di lower time bars fi get a hidea of wat a gwaarn inna de higha bar sinten dem. Puuure info an data inna dem ya knuh.

WTF.... You on crack?
 
I am more and more convinced that the reasons most traders fail are broadly classed as under;

a. They think they have a trading edge when they do not..ie it is either

i. insufficiently tested and unable to stand up to the rigours of market conditions that were not experienced in their test period

or,

ii. basically flawed in some other way, ie based on an incorrect assumption/analysis.

b. They do not understand what a trading edge is, and it's limitations, ie at best a trading edge is a set-up of a condition or set of conditions that suggest a greater probability of price going one way or the other, based on a historical precedent.


c. They have insufficient information about their trading edge such that it exposes them to a drawdown that they do not understand is within the typical - extreme statistical norm of that trading edge, leading them to lose confidence in it/themselves and start to interfere with it's normal operation/cherry pick the times they act on it - during the typical sample, that has proven to produce a gain in the past leading them to adopt it as their trading edge.

d. Their trading edge is not designed to meet their own needs/tolerances/personality etc...Ie if for example c. above causes discomfort then a higher probability trading edge may be required.

e. The trading edge is not optimised to risk and money management that meets their needs/tolerances...Ie it is no use having a trading edge with a 50% strike rate (winning trades as a % of total trades,) and risking 5%/trade if you cannot stand large drawdowns for example.

f. The trading edge does not exhibit a positive expectancy.

g. The trader has not yet fully developed the psychological robustness to enable him to execute the trading edge with impunity. This takes time.

Given that they have a. - f. right, the real battle lies with g.

G/L
 
This seems to have moved onto timeframes and TA. Happened to be discussing this earlier today.

I may be alone in thinking this, but my opinion is that MY technical analysis makes me money, not because other people are seeing the same thing as me and acting on it, but that it gives me an accurate enough information to make informed decisions.

The point is you don't have to always be right, and so you don't have to KNOW what is happening, all you have to do is enter with a positive expectancy. I don't need to know the ins and outs of meteorology to guess that it's raining if I get wet.

As for bar charts, of course they don't provide an edge. What they do, is sort the data into a format I can understand.

My edge comes from the fact that the market acts in a similar way repeatedly. The same people are trading, so it makes sense that they react in a similar way to similar situations.

Lastly I present: the worst metaphore in the world:

"You're in the passenger seat of a car, the guy driving changes gear based purely on the rev counter, when it hits 3k revs he changes up, when it hits .5k revs he changes down, you can't see the rev counter and so don't see his logic, but over time you should be able to figure out when he's going to change gear by the sound of the engine (apart from when he's in bottom or top gear, woooo Iraq xmas special....)"
 
To answer your question, I don't interpret bars, I interpret levels. When examining the market in smaller time frames there is more data and more levels, as a result it becomes difficult to extract key levels hence, the reason I don't look at small time frames and furthermore, the reason I don't look at extremely high time frames as they show less data.

You assume too much DT. You would be better off asking before assuming because you only make an ass out of yourself. Your perception of trading is confined to the walls of your imagination. In regards to FX, which you have stated you do not trade, you are assuming it works as other markets, you are wrong.

The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about...

Let's first get the compliments out of the way:
- ass
- imaginary trader
- ignorant


Right - thank you for that. I won't reply with insults back because to be honest, I'm much better at that game than you are and I don't want to make you cry. We were having a civil discussion. Seems your parents did a very poor job of teaching you civil behaviour. Perhaps you would like some lessons?

Second - take a look at the top of the page. See that "General Trading Chat". As opposed to "Forex chat". Now - if you are accusing me of talking from the viewpoint of the market I actually trade - I plead guilty.

Third - to your point - I would like to thank you for agreeing with me. The following points are key, as I made clear.
- You need to see enough history to trade off
- You need to see where the price went.

Still - the specific timeframe - 60 mins, 70 mins, 90 min etc. will show you pretty much the same information. You should try dropping the timeframes down and compressing the chart so that you cannot see individual bars. When you do this, you see the woods. You obfuscate individual bars so that they are no longer what draws your attention.

As someone that day trades and takes pain to mention that in my posts, even in this thread - the days and prior days action is King and so naturally, I do what I can to make sure it's visible.

Like I say - most people don't consider bars & why they are the basis for all analysis. Most people have bars displayed prominently and ascribe importance to them and their little tails. Most people also don't ask themselves "why exactly am I using bars?" The less mature, get all upset when people question the basis of their belief system.

Yet - the question is relatively simple - why time-splice at all? It's 2010 - bars have been around for years. Is this as good as it gets?

It's not a huge change to obfuscate the bars & look at the big picture. You can either do it or not. It's certainly not worth getting upset about :rolleyes:
 
And cable today provides a fine illustration of the point above, ie tech analysis can work if interpreted correctly;

Price breaks up above Friday's pullback Hi at point a following some supply found at point b at the base of the previous 1hr swing hi zone at point a ...this pullback off the LH at point b resulted in a HL at point z see-ing the current daily Hi and a H on this 1hr t/f at pount d in a previous 1hr swing hi zone (previous resistance) at point c, where supply was encountered...the pullback twice finding temporary support at the previous 1hr swing hi x 2 zone (points a & b -previous resistance=potential support) @ points e and f before supply came in again see-ing a LH at point h resulted in price selling through that potential RBS zone at points a & b on the third attempt down to the previous 1hr swing lo zone at poinnt g where some demand has been encountered confluence with the 76.4% of the Friday lo 5453 to today's current hi 5576.

Entries ccould be found on the time frames below that of the potential support/resistance factors, ie below 1hr....and @ today's current Hi, hidden divergence on that 1hr t/f suggesting a further move down following the pullback in the 4hr downtrend, ie at least a pullback in the 1hr upmove if not a with trend follow thru to a new 4hr LL from this set-up.
G/L



 
Oonu see weh mi a seh, see star. Yuh read higha time bars wen di price a lick di level dem an yuh affi brook dem down, hopen dem up soh an look pon di lower time bars fi get a hidea of wat a gwaarn inna de higha bar sinten dem. Puuure info an data inna dem ya knuh.

Wha gwan scose. Some of these breres proper vex me ya nah, blud. Nuff battymans chatting abat fluid price and ting. Newbies gon get proper prang when dey see dis, star, ya get me.
 
I'm much better at that game than you are and I don't want to make you cry.

Again DT, you automatically presume your better at something to such an extent that I'll be in tears. Drinking superman's p!ss might boost your ego but it won't make you smarter.

We were having a civil discussion. Seems your parents did a very poor job of teaching you civil behaviour. Perhaps you would like some lessons?

Maybe if you read your posts without your ego, you will notice the condescending tone. That being said, I'll leave your mamma out of the debate, it only shows weakness in character.


Second - take a look at the top of the page. See that "General Trading Chat". As opposed to "Forex chat". Now - if you are accusing me of talking from the viewpoint of the market I actually trade - I plead guilty.

Thanks for noticing that. I see you deemed clawing every piece of detail necessary in order to construct a response that taints my character objectively. However, before you reach for your paintbrush you should review your posts. Perhaps more context was needed. Delivering a broad statement that infers facets of charting to be useless without context could be presumed conflictive. Don't you think?

It's certainly not worth getting upset about

Apologies DT for not being upset. Your attempt at climaxing your response with a remark like that is almost comical if it weren't so sad.
 
And cable today provides a fine illustration of the point above, ie tech analysis can work if interpreted correctly;

Price breaks up above Friday's pullback Hi at point a following some supply found at point b at the base of the previous 1hr swing hi zone at point a ...this pullback off the LH at point b resulted in a HL at point z see-ing the current daily Hi and a H on this 1hr t/f at pount d in a previous 1hr swing hi zone (previous resistance) at point c, where supply was encountered...the pullback twice finding temporary support at the previous 1hr swing hi x 2 zone (points a & b -previous resistance=potential support) @ points e and f before supply came in again see-ing a LH at point h resulted in price selling through that potential RBS zone at points a & b on the third attempt down to the previous 1hr swing lo zone at poinnt g where some demand has been encountered confluence with the 76.4% of the Friday lo 5453 to today's current hi 5576.

Entries ccould be found on the time frames below that of the potential support/resistance factors, ie below 1hr....and @ today's current Hi, hidden divergence on that 1hr t/f suggesting a further move down following the pullback in the 4hr downtrend, ie at least a pullback in the 1hr upmove if not a with trend follow thru to a new 4hr LL from this set-up.
G/L




how many pips did you take out of the *move/s*?
 
how many pips did you take out of the *move/s*?

My trading session ended after my last trade at point e, so I only traded the move up from point e on that example 1hr chart posted earlier,and booked +11 pips from a 1min trigger entry. Prior to this I had an 0730 5min set-up and an 0832 1min set-up that I traded.

In posting that chart I was not saying that I had a set-up (that comprises my trading edge) at each of those swing points, indeed other than point g which occurred when I was writing the post I don't know whether there were any per my own methodology, but this is just to say that whilst my own particular methodology may or may not have set-up at these points, the areas highlighted were indisputably areas/zones where there previously existed an obvious imbalance of supply/demand or demand/supply. Others may have had the same analysis in this respect and traded them on different triggers/methodologies/set-ups to my own. I was merely providing a real very recent example as to how TA can work, in response to a previous post.

G/L
 
Last edited:
SL - One of the aspects of journaling (as I was taught) was to keep a record of every trade. One of the key data points for every trade is max adverse excursion AKA how much the ****ing thing went against you.

In my opinion, this is a better way to refine your stops than setting it below a swing lowor the previous low of certain timeframes bars.

See attached s'sheet.

Sheet 1: PnL - Description:

This is a s'sheet that calculates the Expectancy and SD of i) the past 50 trades, and ii) a 20 trade rolling average of this. It then uses these datapoints to calculate the confidence level of the alternative hypothesis that your trade results are better than guessing. There is conditional formatting etc which I won't bother explaining.

Sheet 1: PnL - Legend

(in blue, "trade details")

Date / Contract / Size / L/S / Style -
all fairly obvious I should hope
STOP - TGT - Stop and Target obviously, but must be expressed in %age of account for meaningful figures!

(in Pink, "trade phase parameters")

These are something similar to what DT describes above - the Maximum Adverse Excersion (S(A))and Maximum Favourable Excursion (T(A)) for each trade after you put on until a specified time (e.g. mkt close).

For Example, see the image attached: This reads as...

A) I could have made 15 ticks if I had a stop of 6
B) I could have made 24 ticks if I had a stop of 8
C) I could have made 36 ticks if I had a stop of 12
... and so on
F) this is what I would have made if I had no stop and closed the trade at the close of the market.

NB: A couple of points here - be sure to use the right bid/offer price for your measurements - for example, for A), it means that price went 15+spread in my favour, and 6-spread against me. Also, it is pretty rare to fill all A - E phases - this means that your PnL goes up and down in increasing amounts like a megaphone.

$W/ $L / PnL are obvious.

The rest of the sheet (yellow) describes:

50~E(X) -
50 trade average
50~SD(X) - 50 trade standard deviation
50~C.L. - 50 trade confidence interval (E(X) > 0).

The 20~50~E(X) are simple the 20 period overages of each of the above.

===============================================================

Now, the other pages in the worsksheet are fairly similar in layout, except they are obviously labelled by the instruments that I trade - you can amend these as you see fit, of course. The layout of the data input in identical to the first PnL s'sheet - so all you need to do is copy and paste them from the PnL sheet (from column T# to PnL).

The cool stuff:

Each instrument specific page has an additional feature at the end (in pink and blue). Note the two white cells labelled "TARGET" and "STOP" over the pink cell "Sim Results". What you can do here is input different values of STOP and TARGET, and the s'sheet will run through the trade phase parameters and show you what the result would have been for your past trades in the light blue PnL column at the far right.

The point is that you can - in a rough way - backtest different values of STOP and TARGET for trades that you actually took. You can do this with backtesting software only of your system is entirely rule based, and so this is a (very) rough way of looking at what effect changing your stop and tgt are, and also helps you pick out when volatility in increasing/decreasing.

NB: As I said, it's pretty rough. If you get the result "FAIL" in the far right column (the rest are "working cells") it means it isn't possible to deduce what the result would have been.

Anyway - Merry Christmas, and enjoy :)
 

Attachments

  • TradePhaseParameters.PNG
    TradePhaseParameters.PNG
    4.7 KB · Views: 146
  • PnL_analysis.xls
    285.5 KB · Views: 180
Again DT, you automatically presume your better at something to such an extent that I'll be in tears. Drinking superman's p!ss might boost your ego but it won't make you smarter.



Maybe if you read your posts without your ego, you will notice the condescending tone. That being said, I'll leave your mamma out of the debate, it only shows weakness in character.




Thanks for noticing that. I see you deemed clawing every piece of detail necessary in order to construct a response that taints my character objectively. However, before you reach for your paintbrush you should review your posts. Perhaps more context was needed. Delivering a broad statement that infers facets of charting to be useless without context could be presumed conflictive. Don't you think?



Apologies DT for not being upset. Your attempt at climaxing your response with a remark like that is almost comical if it weren't so sad.

coffee1.gif
 
My trading session ended after my last trade at point e, so I only traded the move up from point e on that example 1hr chart posted earlier,and booked +11 pips from a 1min trigger entry. Prior to this I had an 0730 5min set-up and an 0832 1min set-up that I traded.

In posting that chart I was not saying that I had a set-up (that comprises my trading edge) at each of those swing points, indeed other than point g which occurred when I was writing the post I don't know whether there were any per my own methodology, but this is just to say that whilst my own particular methodology may or may not have set-up at these points, the areas highlighted were indisputably areas/zones where there previously existed an obvious imbalance of supply/demand or demand/supply. Others may have had the same analysis in this respect and traded them on different triggers/methodologies/set-ups to my own. I was merely providing a real very recent example as to how TA can work, in response to a previous post.

G/L

Thanks for that, BB, a simple question, which doesn't require too much sophistry in the answer, do you accept that trading FX (at our whale 5hit level) is simply an exercise in probability (arguably mathematical probability) which can reap rewards if underpinned by sound MM and an equally sound Mind?
 
Top