Auction Market Value Theory & Analytics | Page 53 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Auction Market Theory and Market Profile 26,026 replies

MarketProfile/Volume Profile/Auction Market Theory indi? 17 replies

ECN && STP && Scalping && Hedging - Broker Review - Oct 2009 24 replies

Auction Market Value Analytics Charts & Data 14 replies

Analytics, recommendations - S&P 500, Euro and other 11 replies

Attachments: Auction Market Value Theory & Analytics
Exit Attachments

Auction Market Value Theory & Analytics

  • #1,041
  • Edited 4:38pm Jan 2, 2017 4:24pm | Edited 4:38pm
Quoting thetail
And this is a very nice BO (for now ...) Has anyone caught the move? I've taken only first 35 pip ... too bad, maybe next time ... {image}
Quoting mzvega
{quote} I chose to pass on that one, there wasn't enough data to support a BO into a new trend (for me). The beauty of low risk, high potential trades is that you can be wrong in your analysis and still exit the market in profit. {image} I did take a similar trade in which I felt there was enough data to support the trade (for me). Brackets all "look" alike, what makes them uniquely distinguishable from one another is the data. {image} {image}
When I responded to your post on as to why I personally didn't trade the BO, I explained that imo, the data did not support a BO into a new upward trend, that the data suggested that it was a minor pause in the already current downtrend with a large imbalance in favor of sellers.

I normally just pass, and look for other opportunities but since I took time to explain why imo the data didn't support a BO, I chose to act on the same info.

Well the data suggests a minor pause in the trend, an imbalance in the direction of the trend. LTF traders "respond" to LTF prices. So from a LTF perspective, above the bracket would be the most logical & advantageous place to enter, or re enter the resumption of the current LTF downtrend..The data supported the trade, so I took the trade.

Friday
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: eu.JPG Size: 408 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: friday.JPG Size: 245 KB


EOD data following the trade friday, continued to support the trade..so I decided to hold the trade until the data no longer supports the trade...
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: eu next day.JPG Size: 426 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: today.JPG Size: 247 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,042
  • Jan 2, 2017 5:08pm Jan 2, 2017 5:08pm
Quoting mzvega
{quote} I find it arrogant that you continue to think that my time is somehow less valuable than yours. You found the formula, copied it. You didn't think it was worth spending your time to read the words around it. Instead, since you're under the impression my time is less valuable than yours, I should waste my time going to the same place you copied the formula, read it, and report back to you in a post with the answer. Are you for real?????? And please dont tell me that it was a simple question, that required a simple answer. Needless to say,...
You are disappointed? I am so sorry. The first formula was in VBPT p.98 and the second one was in the Overly demand pdf attachment posted on page 34. I was wondering to be sure which one was authoritative. Every time your Socratic type dialogue (answering question with question) are an answer to me. Forgive me if I wasted your valuable time.
  • #1,043
  • Jan 2, 2017 9:02pm Jan 2, 2017 9:02pm
Wanted to let everyone know, if they didn't already, that MT5 has recently bridged a gateway to CQG and now gets feeds to basically all the exchanges, CME, NYMEX, CBOT, ICE, EUREX, etc. That means real ticks and presumably real volume is now available to trade futures. I just started an account at AMP Futures and the MT5 platform is awesome!
  • #1,044
  • Jan 3, 2017 1:13am Jan 3, 2017 1:13am
Quoting JPworks
{quote} You are disappointed? I am so sorry. The first formula was in VBPT p.98 and the second one was in the Overly demand pdf attachment posted on page 34. I was wondering to be sure which one was authoritative. Every time your Socratic type dialogue (answering question with question) are an answer to me. Forgive me if I wasted your valuable time.
Rather than read the words around the formulas or to do the math that answers the question, You want me to spend my time doing it for you.

If you spent your time reading both sources, you'd have had the answer to your question. Had you read the sources or even did the math, there wouldn't had been a need to ask "which one was authoritative".

Both sources describe the same exact raw RI calculation. Both sources describe the need to "normalize" the data. Each source shows different formulas/methods for "normalizing" the same exact same raw RI calculation.

The point was to "normalize" the data
i.e. it doesn't matter if :
.33 +.33 +.34 = 1.0
Or if...
.50 +. 50 = 1.0
Just as long as the result to answer is 1.0

Both of the formulas, used to normalize the raw RI, in both sources produce the same results......."normalization"

I didn't always know what "normalized" meant. I didn't have the luxury of hanging around a thread waiting for someone else to explain what "normalized" means, or to tell me which formula was "authoritative", I had to look up the definition myself. Then I did the required math, and came to the conclusion that both formulas produce the same results.

If something's not worth you, spending your own time & effort reading & researching, I can guarantee, it's not worth my time, having to explain it to you, instead

Quoting JPworks
{quote} Every time your Socratic type dialogue (answering question with question) are an answer to me. Forgive me if I wasted your valuable time.
No problem..it will have been the last time you will have wasted any more of my time, spoon feeding you info you could have read yourself.
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: RI VBPT.JPG Size: 127 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: RI overlay article.JPG Size: 142 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,045
  • Jan 3, 2017 4:16am Jan 3, 2017 4:16am
Mzvega,
Your statement, "Each source shows different formulas/methods for "normalizing" the same exact same raw RI calculation," would have been good enough. I really appreciate for the extra miles you travel to explain to me. I take every bit here seriously and if I had no any respect I would not have followed you abandoning all my technical analysis all together.
  • #1,046
  • Jan 6, 2017 10:37am Jan 6, 2017 10:37am
Quoting mzvega
{quote} I chose to pass on that one, there wasn't enough data to support a BO into a new trend (for me). The beauty of low risk, high potential trades is that you can be wrong in your analysis and still exit the market in profit. {image} I did take a similar trade in which I felt there was enough data to support the trade (for me). Brackets all "look" alike, what makes them uniquely distinguishable from one another is the data. {image} {image}
Closed my original trade, I took some profit and re entered the trade as the data continues to support the trade.......
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: UC.JPG Size: 294 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: UC1.JPG Size: 224 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,047
  • Jan 9, 2017 1:47am Jan 9, 2017 1:47am
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: eg.JPG Size: 262 KB
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: eg1.JPG Size: 229 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,048
  • Jan 9, 2017 4:10am Jan 9, 2017 4:10am
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: gu1.JPG Size: 206 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: gu.JPG Size: 235 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,049
  • Jan 9, 2017 11:07am Jan 9, 2017 11:07am
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: gj1.JPG Size: 208 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: gj.JPG Size: 206 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,050
  • Jan 10, 2017 3:25am Jan 10, 2017 3:25am
Quoting mzvega
Friday {image} {image} EOD data following the trade friday, continued to support the trade..so I decided to hold the trade until the data no longer supports the trade... {image} {image}
Sorry for delay, new year holidays are over, now back to work.
Thanks mzvega for the tips and insight.
  • #1,051
  • Jan 10, 2017 3:44am Jan 10, 2017 3:44am
Still holding as not too much has changed..............
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: uc gu1.JPG Size: 252 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: uc gu.JPG Size: 515 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: gj eg1.JPG Size: 266 KB

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: gj eg.JPG Size: 430 KB
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,052
  • Jan 10, 2017 5:36am Jan 10, 2017 5:36am
Sorry mzvega, I know I told you I would not have asked you anymore and that I should not look at your spreadsheet but ...
I would not to bore you with the attempted direction again but I have noticed that this reference in your screenshots, even months ago, is always UP.
If the value in the cell is the AD: POC this should be sometimes Up sometimes Down.
Can you explain me the mystery?
Thanks
Attached Image
  • #1,053
  • Jan 10, 2017 11:02am Jan 10, 2017 11:02am
Quoting thetail
Sorry mzvega, I know I told you I would not have asked you anymore and that I should not look at your spreadsheet but ... I would not to bore you with the attempted direction again but I have noticed that this reference in your screenshots, even months ago, is always UP. If the value in the cell is the AD: POC this should be sometimes Up sometimes Down. Can you explain me the mystery? Thanks {image}
That should mean you should know the question being asked behind the cell

That means you should fully understand the question that is being asked (formula) and that also means you spent your time first, understanding what the reference means, how it is calculated, and what the info tells you, before asking me about how it is used in my spreadsheet calculations.

Quoting thetail
If the value in the cell is the AD: POC this should be sometimes Up sometimes Down.
So you tell me what should the formula be? If you know "this should be sometimes Up sometimes Down", that means you should have a full understanding of the question being asked (formula).

So, what is the formula for AD: POC? A simple copy & paste or screenshot of where you learned what AD: POC means, how it is calculated, and how & why it is used.

It would provide a great learning opportunity for others and a great way for you to contribute something to the thread by sharing with others what you have spent your time learning about the AD: POC, how it's calculate, how & why it is used. .

So to solve the mystery, start with how AD: POC is calculated first?
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,054
  • Jan 10, 2017 11:47am Jan 10, 2017 11:47am
mzvega's posts and insights are gold (thank you). I have read, reread, and am still reading the background materials. Slow going, the learning curve is steep, and I am unlearning old views --but I now think this is a much better way of looking at the markets (price and time alone now seem misleading to me).
  • #1,055
  • Jan 10, 2017 12:01pm Jan 10, 2017 12:01pm
Quoting mzvega
... So to solve the mystery, start with how AD: POC is calculated first?
I think that this is the correct way, screen is taken from www.cisco-futures.com/value_analytics.html
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: adpoc.png Size: 87 KB
  • #1,056
  • Edited 3:23pm Jan 10, 2017 1:57pm | Edited 3:23pm
Quoting thetail
{quote} I think that this is the correct way, screen is taken from www.cisco-futures.com/value_analytics.html {image}
So again you are asking me to spend my time explaining a comment based on a lazy "assumption" because you dont want to spend your time learning the how, why and the context in which it is used.

Show us where you actually read the formula, Just like my spreadsheet, that report shows only the end results.

There is nothing you posted that shows or explains how to arrive at the values, used in AD: POC, what they mean and how that info is used.

Where did you spend your time reading how it is calculated, and how & why it is used. Where & what places did you read and learn about the "concept" of attempted direction ??????

UP or Down is an arbitrary value, unless you understand it's context.

Why do you continually expect me to spend my time finding & explaining the things, you're not willing to invest spending your own time on????

Please don't ask me anymore questions unless the question leads with "The source material says.."

The only thing you get of out auction market analysis, is what you put into it.........literally.
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,057
  • Jan 10, 2017 3:52pm Jan 10, 2017 3:52pm
Quoting mzvega
{quote} Show us where you actually read the formula, Just like my spreadsheet, that report shows only the end results.
As already posted here
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...62#post9243562
the only "formula" that I was able to find is from www.cisco-futures.com/amva_explanation.html :

2f. Attempted Direction (Balanced Market) MOM 178, 192, CMP91 65
AD: POC: UP or DN POC directionality, last three days (Close +/- 20% above/below POC) MOM 122

Anyway I don't think that this formula is used in that report and I' m not able to find other formulas about AD: POC on source material.

Then there are varies references in MOM and Cisco-website about Attempted Direction but not formulas.
MOM use: RF, Range extension, Tails, B/S Composite
And there is nothing in VBPT specific about "Attempted Direction", but it is part of a more generic "market direction" which comprises AD, POC and VA.
  • #1,058
  • Jan 11, 2017 3:19am Jan 11, 2017 3:19am
Quoting thetail
{quote} I think that this is the correct way, screen is taken from www.cisco-futures.com/value_analytics.html {image}
What you posted is the "report" where we get the data for our calculations (variables). It is not "The" data results. The attempted direction "result" (value) isn't found in that report. It is found by knowing how to read the data in the report. If you haven't learned to read the data first, you won't learn how to organize it in a spreadsheet for easy readability.

Why don't you go over a few of the value analytics tutorial samples and sample set up sheets you should be modeling your spreadsheets on, rather than my spreadsheets. Read the examples and explanations, that explain how to read each of the references used in the report.

You have to learn how to read the data in the report, before you can learn the how & why of how to use the data or how to best organize the data in a spreadsheet for easy readability.

If you don't understand how to read the data first, you'll never learn to organize the data in a spreadsheet for easy readability.

Quoting thetail
Anyway I don't think that this formula is used in that report ..............
Suit yourself... either way when you are all done with what you "think" you should be calculating you'll have to go back to square 1 and learn how to read what you have calculated. Only then will you realize what you thought you are calculating isn't what you should be calculating and you'll be right back to square 1 again building new spreadsheets.

I don't think you have read any of the relevant articles listed in the reference & research page about value analytics. Have you at least read all the data & links found in the Value Analytics section of cisco and the reference & research page ?

Quoting mzvega
This is why I stress the point of not putting the cart before the horse. You cant perform calculations on references, if you don't know the definition of each reference, and how each reference is calculated, what it calculates, and how to read it, first.
I see we are going to continue going in circles, getting nowhere as you continue to insist putting the cart before the horse.

You're not going spend your time learning how to read the data first, and I am not going spend my time providing answers & explanations, for some one who hasn't.

I apologize, I have very little time & very little patience when dealing with an ass backwards approach. Again please don't ask me any more about my spreadsheets or questions that don't lead with "the source material says................"
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
  • #1,059
  • Jan 11, 2017 5:31am Jan 11, 2017 5:31am
Quoting mzvega
{quote} What you posted is the "report" where we get the data for our calculations (variables). It is not "The" data results. The attempted direction "result" (value) isn't found in that report. It is found by knowing how to read the data in the report.
Well ... really... I don't understand why you answer this ..

I don't ask you about "Attempted Direction", I asked about only 1 reference that is part of Attempted Direction calculation, the "AD: POC", and IF the red cell that i have highlighted here
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...11#post9421811
that is always UP in your spreadsheet, correspond to the "AD: POC" reference in the report.
So if the answer is YES the mystery remain, if the answer is NO it's something else and probably there's no mystery.
I know that the report don't show the "Attempted Direction" final value... but I never asked that.

The last screenshot that I have posted is the flow to get the "AD: POC" final value only, I think that is correct having compared it with the daily reports on cisco website and reading comments and example of the daily flow.

If the flow is not correct can you or others point me to the right source because I am unable to find on MOM, VBPT CBOT or Cisco web site the exact calculation that invalid my calc of this single reference?
Thanks
  • #1,060
  • Jan 11, 2017 3:16pm Jan 11, 2017 3:16pm
Quoting thetail
{quote} Well ... really... I don't understand why you answer this ..
Probably the same reason I don't understand why you asked me this.
Quoting thetail
Sorry mzvega, I know I told you I would not have asked you anymore and that I should not look at your spreadsheet but..
Attempted direction is not an "if up+up must equal up" type of equation.

That completely misses the point of understanding how to use & read the info.

Knowing what the market attempted to do is not the same as describing what actually happened.

Understanding what it attempted to do, and how well of a job it did in it's attempt........ is the question
It tells you something about the market. It contains an element of usable info. It is not used as some kind "signal" telling you which way to trade.

You want to spend your time skimming through the source material cherry picking formulas for calculations, without first taking the time to understand how to read the data & read the source material.

Quoting thetail
If the flow is not correct can you or others point me to the right source because I am unable to find on MOM, VBPT CBOT or Cisco web site the exact calculation that invalid my calc of this single reference?
This is why I will not answer the "cart before the horse questions"......because that lays the burden on me having to "re find" the info already provided for you and explain everything you haven't yet taken the time to read yourself.

So what have we learned ?
Shame on you for asking about my spreadsheet calculations when I asked you not to, and shame on me for responding.
Lesson learned.
Markets are not efficient, rather they are effective - Jones
0 traders viewing now