yes - i am looking forward to skimbleshanks explanation as i note b 4 mr socrates arrived, skimbleshanks would love to show defined entry criteria, wave theory that defined enty and exit points. as soon as u arrive skimbleshanks suggests (correct if i am wrong) these approaches are new irrelevant and follows p&v exclusively.
u mention it take u 11 years to develop your mental approach (much admiration 4 that from me), yet skimbleshanks has done it in a couple of weeks!
so please skimbleshanks - are u still using your wave theory? why did u use your wave theory in the 1st place? is it because YOU BELIEVED IT TO HAVE A STATISTICAL EDGE MAYBE? yet stats r rubbish u now say! how now?
please explain because i am confused at this. i have traded for 28 yrs since 17, so i do know something. i am sure many with less experience are equally confused at this apparent & sudden turn around.
u mention it take u 11 years to develop your mental approach (much admiration 4 that from me), yet skimbleshanks has done it in a couple of weeks!
so please skimbleshanks - are u still using your wave theory? why did u use your wave theory in the 1st place? is it because YOU BELIEVED IT TO HAVE A STATISTICAL EDGE MAYBE? yet stats r rubbish u now say! how now?
please explain because i am confused at this. i have traded for 28 yrs since 17, so i do know something. i am sure many with less experience are equally confused at this apparent & sudden turn around.
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
An experienced background is always useful in these forums.Thirteen said:
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=8739&page=1&pp=15
13 - what's your position on volume in trading?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,325
- Likes
- 17
Thirteen
Nobody said we are the final authorities on trading. That is something you have suggested, and you are completely wrong. If you read carefully you will see that I state that "I use only price and volume to trade." Quite how you mange to turn that into "who said u 2 are the final authorities on trading" is surprising. And funny.
If my post displays "a total ignorance of trading" to you, then so be it.
Oh, and incidentally, where are YOUR posts explaining your methods? There aren't any. Now isn't that funny.
There are plenty of people who attack others, but where are their posts explaining their trading methods? There aren't any of those either. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?
And to answer your questions, no I don't use stop losses, no I don't use defined entry criteria, and no I don't use money management.
Price forms in waves in all timeframes and if you can see them, then great. The vast majority cannot. I have an edge, but it is nothing to do with statistics, nor Elliott Waves. I don't advocate backtesting, and I never have - a "statistical edge" is a result of backtesting.
That is not true. I wish it did take a couple of weeks, but unfortunately it doesn't. It takes months and months, if not years, to understand after it has been pointed out to you, and then once you understand you need to perfect it. If you think my knowledge on price and volume was gained over a couple of weeks then you are very imaginative.
And I DO take it as a personal attack, because this is not the first time you have attacked me (you do it publicly and via PMs as you know), and nor I suspect will it be the last. You seem to get a kick out of attacking others.
And is it any surprise that you share the same IP address as another recently-banned poster from these boards who also went out of his way to attack me? Naughty, naughty!
Nobody said we are the final authorities on trading. That is something you have suggested, and you are completely wrong. If you read carefully you will see that I state that "I use only price and volume to trade." Quite how you mange to turn that into "who said u 2 are the final authorities on trading" is surprising. And funny.
If my post displays "a total ignorance of trading" to you, then so be it.
Oh, and incidentally, where are YOUR posts explaining your methods? There aren't any. Now isn't that funny.
There are plenty of people who attack others, but where are their posts explaining their trading methods? There aren't any of those either. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?
And to answer your questions, no I don't use stop losses, no I don't use defined entry criteria, and no I don't use money management.
Thirteen said:
Price forms in waves in all timeframes and if you can see them, then great. The vast majority cannot. I have an edge, but it is nothing to do with statistics, nor Elliott Waves. I don't advocate backtesting, and I never have - a "statistical edge" is a result of backtesting.
Thirteen said:
That is not true. I wish it did take a couple of weeks, but unfortunately it doesn't. It takes months and months, if not years, to understand after it has been pointed out to you, and then once you understand you need to perfect it. If you think my knowledge on price and volume was gained over a couple of weeks then you are very imaginative.
And I DO take it as a personal attack, because this is not the first time you have attacked me (you do it publicly and via PMs as you know), and nor I suspect will it be the last. You seem to get a kick out of attacking others.
And is it any surprise that you share the same IP address as another recently-banned poster from these boards who also went out of his way to attack me? Naughty, naughty!
growltiger
Member
- Messages
- 91
- Likes
- 0
Art v Science
Well, yes, Socrates, I think that is the crux. There must be sort of grey area where the number of variables becomes so large that what you call "rigid" science becomes impracticable. But those who wish to climb the slopes may be helped as much by the effort of developing a succession of partial theories (each compact enough to be grasped, and clear enough for the consequences to be testable) as by pure eyeballing of the raw phenomena. Watching without blinking is one style of work, and theorising is another. But, as another philosopher said (roughly), experiences without concepts are blind, and concepts without experiences are impotent. Both parts are necessary.
As regards Tom Williams, I hope it is clear from my example that I think (a) there is nothing wrong with the observations he put into his signals and (b) nevertheless, it is impossible to trade the way the software implies.
SOCRATES said:
Well, yes, Socrates, I think that is the crux. There must be sort of grey area where the number of variables becomes so large that what you call "rigid" science becomes impracticable. But those who wish to climb the slopes may be helped as much by the effort of developing a succession of partial theories (each compact enough to be grasped, and clear enough for the consequences to be testable) as by pure eyeballing of the raw phenomena. Watching without blinking is one style of work, and theorising is another. But, as another philosopher said (roughly), experiences without concepts are blind, and concepts without experiences are impotent. Both parts are necessary.
As regards Tom Williams, I hope it is clear from my example that I think (a) there is nothing wrong with the observations he put into his signals and (b) nevertheless, it is impossible to trade the way the software implies.
Trader333 said:
Now you are starting to provide some statistics on this method. You say that you produce 1%/day. On a compound basis (assuming 250 trading days/year) that is an annual increase of about 1200%. Very good and I assume that you will retire shortly. Can you provide some other statistics (e.g., % win. drawdown, etc.)? On the surface, if the indicated annual return is true, everyone should be jumping on board.
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
You missed my earlier post asking you to provide us with your argumaent in support of a previous statement you made. If you're unable to do so then you're not in too good a position in attrempting to develop lines elsewhere.culion said:
culion said:
Trader333
Moderator
- Messages
- 8,746
- Likes
- 1,025
culion,
As I and others have previously explained it is not a method as such and I am not going to fall into the trap of attempting to satisfy your requirement of how you think this approach should be measured. On the No Indicators thread I called 3 realtime trades all of which were profitable. Others who know me have seen that my accuracy level on calling realtime trades is very high but I will not put a statistic to it.
It is clear that further discussion on this is pointless as people are sticking to their views which they are not prepared to change which is fine but I dont wish to argue the case any more as I am happy in what I do.
Paul
As I and others have previously explained it is not a method as such and I am not going to fall into the trap of attempting to satisfy your requirement of how you think this approach should be measured. On the No Indicators thread I called 3 realtime trades all of which were profitable. Others who know me have seen that my accuracy level on calling realtime trades is very high but I will not put a statistic to it.
It is clear that further discussion on this is pointless as people are sticking to their views which they are not prepared to change which is fine but I dont wish to argue the case any more as I am happy in what I do.
Paul
bramble-
hands up. i like 2 joke.
yes volume is important, but not as reliable as some think. little is. thats markets.
skimbleshanx -
1/thnx 4 getting back.
2/ that post still does seem v arrogant 2 me.
3/ no i dont go in2 detail about my methods.
4/dont mean to akkack in public. only question. i think new guys have right 2 c both sides
5/ u do not uderstand what edge is, so how can u have/define one without basic probability theory ie STATISTICS. can u define yr edge then please?
6/ i was refering 2 your quick turnaround in approach
7/ (LUCKY FOR SOME) ?
as side point. if statistics r useless, why 70% of nas volume (&50% es) come from stat based systems from sell side players? do u know more than goldman sachs, merrill lynch, quanumn capital (SOROS!)
as socrates wud say ' if it wasnt so damn serious, it wuld be side splitting'
later.
hands up. i like 2 joke.
yes volume is important, but not as reliable as some think. little is. thats markets.
skimbleshanx -
1/thnx 4 getting back.
2/ that post still does seem v arrogant 2 me.
3/ no i dont go in2 detail about my methods.
4/dont mean to akkack in public. only question. i think new guys have right 2 c both sides
5/ u do not uderstand what edge is, so how can u have/define one without basic probability theory ie STATISTICS. can u define yr edge then please?
6/ i was refering 2 your quick turnaround in approach
7/ (LUCKY FOR SOME) ?
as side point. if statistics r useless, why 70% of nas volume (&50% es) come from stat based systems from sell side players? do u know more than goldman sachs, merrill lynch, quanumn capital (SOROS!)
as socrates wud say ' if it wasnt so damn serious, it wuld be side splitting'
later.
- Messages
- 2,325
- Likes
- 17
Thirteen said:
Ahhh, so you want information from me, but are unprepared to share any in return? What a naughty teenager you are!
Skimbleshanks said:
Not surprisingly, you jump to conclusions without any facts which is consistent with your intuitive trading style. To set the record straight, I am not an academic, although I have sum skool’in, and have been trading for a long time.
For one who engages in a discussion regarding statistics, your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming. You and Socrates talk the talk but do not walk the walk. As I said several times, let’s forget about backtesting because it gives you heartburn and one does not need to backtest in order to generate statistics, just keep a record of what happens and/or what has happened. Why do you have a problem understanding this? Presumably you actually do this. Or do you trade on the basis of a gut feeling that what you are doing is OK and better than other approaches, which is the conclusion one reaches when reading your posts? To claim that "Statistics are produced by those with egos and emotions who need to prove their system to themselves" is one the stupidest comments that I have seen on the subject.
I do not question your veracity with respect to using a non-quantifiable, intuitive methodology, but this in no way excludes documenting the method’s track record in a variety of ways. Without demonstration of the success of this approach you and Socrates should not be surprised that many view you as afloat in a sea of psychobabble.
It is amusing to note that you do not feel the need to produce a convincing argument but on the other hand spend much of your life on these boards defending your “non-definable” approach. Since your approach cannot be defined for us little folk with “low levels of intelligence,” to quote Socrates (LOL), based on this thread and others, discussions about trading with you guys is obviously not worthwhile.
Good trading to you.
TheBramble said:
I did not miss it but thought you should be able to glean enough from the prior discussion. Guess not. Suffice it to say that there is really no argument to present. As noted before, I use volume as discussed in numerous TA texts to help define the background for other indicators and I generally give it less weight. As a result, I obviously do not used it as a stand-alone indicator, but then again I have not found over time any indicator to be consistently useful as a stand-alone indicator. As for interpretation, I assume that you have read the interpretation of volume in the texts, and if not that should be high on your “to do” list, if you are interested in using volume. As Chartman and Growltiger noted, spikes are of particular importance. No voodoo. Just a useful metric at times.
- Messages
- 2,325
- Likes
- 17
culion said:
You are wrong - I didn't jump to conclusions. Before I made the statement "I notice you are from the academia world", I checked, and you signed onto this website using an email from Columbia University, New York.
Your posts seem a tad rude to me - are you sure you've not mistaken T2W for Elite Trader?
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
That's right. Your style was a little too fuzzy for me to pick up precisely what is was you were trying to say. That's probably my fault so don't go beating yourself up over it.culion said:
Where?culion said:
So you're not really providing any new input to this thread then.culion said:
OK Thanks?
Skimbleshanks said:
Just a quick note to note that you are dead wrong. So, yes you did jump to an incorrect conclusion. Most universities in the states provide free e-mail addresses for those that manage to get through. In most languages, having graduated from a university does not make one a member of academia. No more than any of us a members of the elementary school system, although we all attended. A tad rude? Reread the junk that you and Socrates dumped on me and others and you will see that you got off easy. Why others on t2W stand for that is beyond me. Outta here.
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
Only comapred to some....neil said:See....unlike your tagline...you do have brains
Dear All,
The title of this tread is “The importance of Volume”. Maybe there should have been a question mark at the end as some posters on this thread feel it is important and some feel it is not so. I feel volume is important but only because of threads I’ve read on this excellent website, so I could be completely wrong. What I would like to see now is some examples of why both sides think one way or the other. For instance, Culion says:
I would find it useful to hear what parts of “volume as discussed in numerous TA texts” you use and how you “found volume in any time frame to be sufficiently precise for timing purposes, but abnormal or trending volume can normally be interpreted and is useful as "background" information”.
I’m not purposely singling out Culion. Another poster, called Thirteen, also says:
So could you explain how you have found volume important but not always reliable.
But maybe I have misinterpreted this thread and thought it was a discussion about using Volume when it is in fact just a discussion about whether volume is important. If I have misinterpreted this thread I apologise. I also apologise in advance if this is the wrong place to ask another question. I have been looking for a good book that just deals with Price and Volume only. I have found two books so far but don’t know if they are “good”. The two books are:
Trading on Volume: The Key to Identifying and Profiting from Stock Price Reversals written by ~Donald Cassidy
And
Real-time Futures Trading: How to Use Price, Volume and Volatility to Master the Markets by Al Gietzen
Has anyone on this thread read either/both books and can recommend one (or another that I have not found yet) then I would be very grateful.
The title of this tread is “The importance of Volume”. Maybe there should have been a question mark at the end as some posters on this thread feel it is important and some feel it is not so. I feel volume is important but only because of threads I’ve read on this excellent website, so I could be completely wrong. What I would like to see now is some examples of why both sides think one way or the other. For instance, Culion says:
culion said:
I would find it useful to hear what parts of “volume as discussed in numerous TA texts” you use and how you “found volume in any time frame to be sufficiently precise for timing purposes, but abnormal or trending volume can normally be interpreted and is useful as "background" information”.
I’m not purposely singling out Culion. Another poster, called Thirteen, also says:
Thirteen said:
So could you explain how you have found volume important but not always reliable.
But maybe I have misinterpreted this thread and thought it was a discussion about using Volume when it is in fact just a discussion about whether volume is important. If I have misinterpreted this thread I apologise. I also apologise in advance if this is the wrong place to ask another question. I have been looking for a good book that just deals with Price and Volume only. I have found two books so far but don’t know if they are “good”. The two books are:
Trading on Volume: The Key to Identifying and Profiting from Stock Price Reversals written by ~Donald Cassidy
And
Real-time Futures Trading: How to Use Price, Volume and Volatility to Master the Markets by Al Gietzen
Has anyone on this thread read either/both books and can recommend one (or another that I have not found yet) then I would be very grateful.
