Auction Market Value Theory & Analytics

I appreciate you taking the time to post to the thread. I think you are taking the right approach taking your time reading, re reading, and understanding the background material. It is a slow process. It starts with basic concepts, on which other concepts are built, on which other concepts are built. There is a steady progression of understanding.

Skipping or skimming through the process leads to huge gaps in one's understanding. First is accepting the fact that all markets are the result of an auction process. Then an understanding of why technical analysis is not auction market analysis. Then understanding the difference between "chronological time" and "price over time".

The most difficult part is unlearning old beliefs and assumptions about the market. The value in that is understanding where those beliefs actually come from. i.e. you'll hear many retail traders claim that the market is "efficient", while they use a chart full of price indicators. If they truly understood the concept of efficient market hypothesis (EMH), they would have to hold the belief indicators are useless. The name itself "hypothesis" implies it not supported by empirical evidence (theory). Many retail traders believe the markets are a random walk while they use a chart full of price indicators. If markets are truly a random walk, the use of indicators are still pointless. Then you have a group of retail traders believe the market is a combination of both EMH & Random walk refute the use technical analysis, yet the retail trader who believes this still uses TA.

Half the battle is won by examining your belief system, and where those old views & beliefs originate. Then there is learning and understanding "data validity". Is your data fit for the task at hand........etc.

The complexity of AMVA isn't in the quantitative analysis, the math is rather simple. The difficulty lays in unlearning false perceptions, and examining old beliefs about the market through the use of empirical evidence & research. Those who have glossed over the fundamental, fundamentals (theory & permitted practices) have the most difficulty in creating their own tools (spreadsheets) for analysis. Most traders want to trade NOW and learn later.

I appreciate the kind words, however I cant take credit for any "insight" on my part, my knowledge base consists of empirical research, empirical testing, & empirical evidence easily available to everyone..

If you have any difficulty understanding or need some clarity in something you're reading in the background material don't hesitate to ask...

Again with this story of "read the sources"? I read and reread those...
I really understand your point of view, your method, but may be the possibility that a concept that for you is clear, to me is not, even if I read it 1.000.000 times?
Or that reading the same sources we have two different interpretations?
Already said in other post ... I prefer you say me I'm stupid because I did not understand something rather than you tell me that I have not read anything.
Anyway, I really appreciate the time and effort you spent to answer my posts.
Thanks a lot.

Hi

First let me thank mzvega for the time and the effort she's spending here, this treadh is a real gem; i am fairly new to AMT, but i have all the intention to dig into it ... even if the math and the excel stuff scares me a lot.
I am actually reading Value based power trading, it will probably take me some time and some re-re-re-reading to digest all the concepts, but my intention is to master all the concepts and the ideas the author shared with us before anything else.
Meanwhile i have downloaded the indicator, just to have a visual reference, it seems is working well, but i can't find the option to adjust the time (wonna use gmt 0).
Here are the setting to my indicator


here in this post http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...48#post8558048 mzvega settings with the gmt options
Maybe this options is available only in the "beta version" she's using it ?

First you are assuming that the indicator isn't using 0 gmt.
This is not a MP indicator. The only thing AMVA has in common with MP indicator is that it uses the same type of price time format.

I dont think you have a full understanding how Overlay profiles are constructed.

MT4 charts are built & plot OHLC time series data. The use of OHLC candlesticks & bar charts are non permitted practices in Auction Market Value Theory. The OHLC data has to be reformatted into a price*time format. Then displayed on the chart. It is not made up of objects plotted using linear time series data (OHLC). All profiles use price*time format it does not plot linear time. The indicator display is floating on top of the chart. It is not made "of" the chart. It floats above it. As each new candle appears, the chart moves one step closer to the right edge of the screen. Since the indicator is not plotted on the chart it just repositions itself above it.

This is not a volume indicator. VP uses tick volume from OHLC data. Tick volume using OHLC is not a true representation of tick volume at price. Even if you use 1 minute OHLC the tick volume reported is for a range of prices (the 1 min range from H-L) A 50 pip 1 min candle reports tick volume for the whole 50 pip range. Not tick volume at each individual price. It is a misleading and a misrepresentation of the data being plotted. Thats why VP's cant handle multiple multiday profiles without taxing CPU's.

We are measuring two completely different things.

Using any OHLC time series data for analysis is a non permitted practice. That is also why TA is a non permitted practice in Auction Market Value Theory. Most TA uses indicators which plot data & objects using time series data.

It's not the mathematical methods of TA that make it a non permitted practice, it's the choice of the "data" used for analysis.

Anyway, AMVA only uses data that has been "reformatted" into a price time format.
The profiles are floating on top of the chart. It doesn't matter what "charting" TF you change to, the profile remains in the same position. It is just borrowing a place to plot the data. The data is reformatted and then plotted using a function process, using a different language than MT4

"it will not. whatever chart timeframe you use, it will always have the same profile width. the indicator only rent a space on your chart." Bandung
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...56#post5335356


Yes that was a beta version........ But this is not MP, we use 24h data. We don't use arbitrary indicator start times. That makes the data "subjective" depending on the user. We only want "objective quantifiable measures". Indicator start times only matter to people who trade the indicator. We dont trade patterns or lines of the indicator references. We don't trade their absolute values as trade locations for chart entries, we use the data/info from references for analysis to read the market. Only the current price is relative to the profiles. If you think that the candles should match or line up evenly to the indicator, it wont. The profiles & data use 0 gmt.

I'll be happy to help answer any of your questions about any of the basic fundamentals as you read the source material.
This isn't a "trading strategy" looking for some kind of trade set up from the lines & shapes of the indicator. Pattern recognition , is void of analysis.

UPDATED

Hi mzvega

Thank you for the enlightenment on AMVA. I've been taking the time to read and digest most of the recommended sources and references. It's like a breath of fresh air to de-clutter the mind from the "traditional" TA. Looking forward to reading your informational posts from time to time.

Regards from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

I appreciate the kind words. I'll be happy to help answer any of your questions about any of the basic fundamentals as you read the source material. The most difficult part is unlearning the faulty misconceptions we've learned from TA. You have to examine the context of your old belief systems in order to fully understand how auction markets operate………...

I'm here posting again after 2 months from my first post!

Well, it is a long road, i readed almost everything, from books, thread and cisco website. Some concept are still abstract to me, i will re-read what i find difficult to grasp by my self, and maybe i could ask mzvega to suggest me where i can read about my question? @mzvega.

Language barrier are a bit of a problem for me, not a good english speaker it's difficult to understand for me sometimes.

Anyway, again a HUGE thanks to mzvega, your time is well appreciated here, you gives us winsdom, and you spend your time to explain us what you've learned in 10 years or so, wow, i can't say anything more.

I know that sometimes someone of us ask you too mcuh, we are kinda scared in front of all these material, and we want shortcuts, but not everyone is asking shortcut, like dljonesFan (a breath of fresh air as you said time ago), keep posting here and share your experience and knowledge.

Auction Markets: From Market Profile to Value Analytics: January 11, 2008

Donald L. Jones
CISCO Futures
January 2008

The CBOT product announcement of Market Profile in 1985 revolutionized market analysis. The focus on intra-day market behavior offered more information than ever before possible. Couched in the terms of pattern recognition, the CBOT Market Profile Manual suggested that analysis proceeded from first recognizing the type of trading day. Day type was the base, the indicator of who was in control of the market; short or long term traders. Unfortunately, the number of day types varies with the author and the same author might cite a different number of day types in different publications.

At CISCO we could not make pattern recognition work for us. In exploring alternatives we found that it was very dicey to put too much faith in a single day's profile. In our book, Value Based Power Trading, 1993, we noted that even a market in a solid trend had day to day variations that on a single day basis made the trend unrecognizable. Broadening that concept led to the Three Day Rule (2007). That rule, simply stated, says that market condition cannot be reliably found from a single day's data. Three days of profiles together offers a much more reliable measure of market condition. That missing link in profile analysis led to our work on value based analyses, starting with the Overlay Demand Curve (1988). (Dates such as (2007) refer to entries on the References page, which are ordered by date)

Background on Market Profile

Market Profile (tm) appeared in 1985 as a product of the Chicago Board of Trade that "integrates price, time and volume". It incorporates real time ticks to generate a 'profile graphic' of market activity displayed in a 1/2 hour bar basis (TPO's). This 'profile' often forms a bell shaped distribution when plotted as a price-activity graphic.

The accompanying CBOT Market Profile Manual, 1985 (MPM 85), explains the uses of the profile in terms of analyzing the bell-shaped graphic. End of day cleared data, the Liquidity Data Bank (LDB), breaks down a day by cleared volume by type of member to show who on the floor is active at what price levels. LDB voume data is the source of profile value (profile value area).

The bell-shaped price-activity chart's similarity to a gaussian distribution is used to draw inferences about the market such as the type of day (2 listed), (day) condition of the market (trend or balance) and other profile dynamics. Value as found from the cleared volume in the LDB, is the range of the first standard deviation of the volume profile.

Several 'reference points' are identified, more particularly in Market Profile Manual, 1991 (MPM 91). These reference points, again day timeframe oriented, explain certain elements of a market's behavior such as trade facilitation, initial balance, range extension, tails, who is most active in the value area and attempted direction. The book, Mind Over Markets, 1990, Dalton, et. al., (MOM), addresses reference points in a somewhat more organized manner.

Reference points read from the bell shaped price-activity curve, including day type, are prone to more than one interpretation. The goal is to identify the source of market control: short timeframe traders like the locals must trade to make a living and the long timeframe (other) traders are looking for bargains and will not trade otherwise. The interpretations are often judgment calls, depending upon ones recognition of the market patterns. Market Profile Manual, 1985, states that it will take six months to a year to gain the expertise required to recognize and interpret the various market forms. In sum, the user is expected to become adept at pattern recognition.

Comment:
The basic premise of market profile, it's foundation, is that the bell shaped price-volume curve from the LDB volume and the price-activity curve from TPO's forms gaussian distributions. A gaussian distribution has a well defined form, the bell shape. Two parameters (mean and standard deviation) define all points on the curve. Experimentally, for a gaussian distribution, both the mean and standard deviation can be found from the data. The identical formula can be applied to non-gaussian data, but, of course, the interpretations are meaningless. One problem with market profile is that there is little, if any discussion about data validity; does the distribution at hand fit the bell shape model and what to do if the bell shape is not present that day or the day shows both bell parts and non-bell shaped areas. Tests of the quality of fit to a gaussian curve are available in the statistics literature (e.g. chi-square) but not mentioned in CBOT 1985, CBOT 1991 or MOM. A distribution may have a bell shape and still not be gaussian. That would mean that at the very least, value obtained is questionable.

If the price-volume curve is not bell shaped at all, it is obviously incorrect to apply gaussian statistical analyses. Since bell shaped curves occur in balanced markets (and probably only in balances), it is important to have tools to identify balance. None are offered in the Market Profile Manuals or MOM.

Secondly, the profile methodology presented is essentially day timeframe. 'Market condition' is used to describe the current day, not the multi-day market environment. Simple observation of a string of profile days shows the wide variation of shapes day-to-day. If a trader is to judge what a change in the distribution's form means there must be guidelines. The difficulty, of course, is the almost infinite variations in profile shape possible day-to-day or even intra-day.

The concept of finding value for the day from a gaussian distribution was a great leap in market analysis. But not every day can be so analyzed. It is unfortunate that no discussion is made of these situations. For example, what should the trader do if yesterday was gaussian, but today is not; but the market is still not trending?

Lastly, the patterns that trading decisions are based on are often poorly defined. Identifying 'Day Type' illustrates the recognition problem. Day Type is a starting point in the Market Profile scheme for market analysis. A day's analysis begins by recognizing the profile form (day type) which tells who is controlling the action (short time frame or long (other) time frame).

In the words of CBOT Market Profile, 1991, pg 4
...the market has only a finite number of behavior patterns and that finite number is universal from market to market.

and from Mind Over Markets, pg 19:
...Market Profile as a whole tends to fall into readable patterns in the day timeframe, determined by the degree of involvement of the other timeframe participant. These patterns, when properly identified, can increase the day trader's success, as well as provide information regarding what the market is trying to do in the longer term.

CBOT Market Profile, 1985, listed two day types. CBOT Market Profile, 1991 has four. Steidlmayer on Markets, 1989, posts six. MOM, 1990, has nine. Steidlmayer on Markets, 2003, gives five. Markets in Profile, 2007, does not have an index item for Day Type!

The primary writers in the area do not agree with each other or even themselves on the number of basic day types that exist. But day type presumably shows the areas of dominance of the trader types (short and long timeframe) and so is the starting point for profile analysis. How can the student be expected to learn holistic profile market analysis if the guidelines are so variable and so poorly defined?

A real danger is that in spite of the revolution in market analysis effected by market profile methodology, it leads traders to expect too much from each piece of data. All traders want to take a reference point, say value area or initial balance, and predict the coming market activity; or to be able to compare one day's value with the next to explain and project the market's behavior.

If we could interpret todays market's, as demonstrated by Steidlmayer in CBOT Market Profile 1991, we would hold the keys to untold wealth. Steidlmayer was in a unique position of personally knowing the players on the floor as well as being an astute observer of market behavior. This is a far cry from the situation of the normal trader. Reality says "you are in a complex environment and it is highly unlikely that knowledge of any one or two market elements will insure your success". It is experimentally apparent that one day's data is inadequate to measure Market Condition. Further, since market shapes run the gamut from well developed bells to completely directional straight lines, there should be some measure of where the crossover occurs between distributions amenable to value analysis and those that are not; if one is to use pattern recognition.


Background for Value Based Analyses
At CISCO we initially tried the holism path and found it impossible to read a market objectively. Starting with a profile, we first had trouble determining the day type consistently. In some cases day type was clear, others, not at all. Without a day type upon which to base our analysis, we were stymied.

Early on we wrote a computer program that would input a day's price - TPO data and output day type. This was a surprisingly difficult program because there are no sharp demarcations between day types. Our expectation was that once we knew the day type unequivocally we would find statistical agreement between day type and market behavior the next day. We found no aid in having day type, so far as trading the next day was concerned. (1986, CISCO internal report)

So, by 1987 our path diverged from holism to objectivity. First we found that value area, by the CBOT definition, could not be calculated for any but CBOT markets. we researched the Tick-TPO, or Meta-Profile value method and that is now the standard for the industry.

Next we realized that one day's profile could be understood only within the context of the market as a whole, i.e. the (multi-day) Market Condition. That is, Market Condition to us means the collective behavior of several days (minimum of three). That led us to develop the Overlay Demand Curve to determine whether the market is in balance or not. The critical point here is that the reference points used in the holistic interpretation, such as value area, are NOT valid unless the market is stable, i.e. in balance. (1988)

In 1992 we examined the Commercial trader and their identification of value. This study relied on the LDB data, which displayed the CTI2 (commercial) volume. That data will not be reported after January 1, 2008. (1992)

Then we questioned sampling periods. Is a 30 minute time frame too long, too short or just right for the intra-day bars that specify the TPOs? Sample periods are affected by the run-pause nature of markets. A very short time sample, say a few minutes, could be in the noise. A very long time, say a trading day, wipes out the intra-day detail. We found the best time to be about 25 minutes, close to the 30 minute timeframe originally chosen by Steidlmayer in CBOT Market Profile, 1985. So the standard 30 minute time slices are fine. On our Meta-Profile intra-day display (CMaPS) we offer both 30 and 15 minute profiles--the shorter one for closer examination of run-to-pause or pause-to-run transitions. (1993)

We examined the Liquidity Data Bank intra-day reports for day trading. Our finding: The clearing delay of about an hour is too slow for most day traders. (1993)

We also examined known trends for day-to-day serial correlation. That is, in a long trend is the trend apparent day to day?We found no serial correlation from one day to the next, some in day to second day and and good correlation basis day to third day. These findings confirm our later measures of balance periods requiring three days to define a balance. This study is on pages 19 - 23 of our book, Value Based Power Trading, (1993)

Back in 1973 when we were beginning to manage money, we ran into the Efficient Market Hypothesis. This theory, championed by the Chicago School of Economics, inferred that all technical trading models were based on invalid principles. If true, our trading model was doomed. We reasoned that if we could find any predictability in market data, that would invalidate the Hypothesis. We showed that in a mature futures contract (front month at least 60 days old) a new contract high would be followed by a yet higher high within the next ten days with an 82 percent probability. Mission accomplished, Efficient Market Hypothesis disproved. Work by others many years later confirmed our finding. (1973)

A recurring theme in CISCO research is the validity of the data. In 1999 - 2000 we developed the Advice Engine, a daily listing of all markets in balance, with periods of 5, 10, 15 and 20 days. To merit inclusion, there has to be both a 5 and a 10 day balance. This list of balanced markets (end of day) is for trade guidance the next day. The report is in two parts: Part 1 lists all markets in balance at end of day. A sub Part 1, the Select Table, are those futures in Part 1 that a CISCO proprietary algorithm chooses because they are deemed to have have better potential. Part 2 lists the breakouts of the postings of the previous day. CISCO maintains the daily Advice Engine Report in a research database. (2002)

A diversification tool, the Advice Engine Table also offers a quantitative methodology for testing our ideas on the importance of balance dynamics. Results from backtesting of models are highly suspect. We instead devised a test method that does not rely on a model. First we choose a test future (generally but not necessarily) from the Select Table. Then we search the history database over the timeframe chosen for breakout trades. The resulting table of trades shows the date of the breakout, the maximum extent of the price run and the risk that is listed in the original Advice Engine Table. We call the maximum price run after breakout the 'Potential'. Potential is not profit, it is the amount a perfect trader could made on the trade. The results for a SP test for 2005 - 2006 are: Out of the approximately 500 trading days, there were 268 days of balances. Of these 268 balances, 131 broke out, with an an average Risk of $643 and average Potential of $1,229. Understand, this is not a trading model and to get 100% of the potential you would always have to pick the top (or bottom). A good trader might get 40% or 50% of the Potential. This 'Potential' approach is for "proof of principle". It shows that, for SP, trading breakouts offers a positive return, large enough to interest a trader. A 'Figure of Merit'; Potential divided by Risk, in this case is 1.91. A subscriber can search the database for markets of their choice, just as we did with SP above. (2001)

In response to a query, in 2002 we compared the value from the Market Profile (cleared volume) and the Meta-Profile in changing markets, when there was a breakout. We found that there were some differences--sometimes Market Profile would reflect the change better, sometimes it was Meta-Profile. The article is in our References section. (2002)

Also in 2002, we showed how to develop a trading model with Auction Market Theory. Everyone wants a model, preferably one that wins regularly with little drawdown. As we all know, such models are in short supply. But, there is a proper approach to model development that many of those selling training do not follow. This article takes the trader through model development in detail. We make the point that models can be developed that are valid within Auction Market Theory, but the fine points of trading must come from you, the trader. You probably will not find that ideal model, but you probably can develop a model to fit your needs. (2002)

Volatility is ever present. At best it is noise that affects one's stops. At worst it destroys a trade. This article, written in 2003, explores volatility as it affects a trade. A market may fit the market profile standard (bell shape, gaussian distribution) with wide ranging prices, or narrow. Patterns may be similar for the two cases, but high volatility may cause stops to be hit that would not be the case in low volatility. (2003)

In our effort to encourage our customers to diversify, we revisited the Trading opportunity concept. Again using the Advice Engine database, we show how to use the Figure of Merit in selecting trading opportunity. (2004)

Accepted wisdom in the auction market trade is the belief that the public are dummies. Sometimes we are. Most especially when we are taking advice from the insiders. A way to not be the dummy is to understand markets. Value analyses can prepare you to look at markets objectively. This does not guarantee that you will win, but it does insure that you are harder to fleece. Article on site. (2004)

The article on the Market's Second Chance revolves around the fact that markets run and pause, run and pause continuously and on numerous timeframes. This antedates the article on run-pause in 2007 (above). The point is that the run-pause nature of markets tells you to not give up if you missed a trade, it may come around again. Roughly, a market offers about three run-pause phases per day. (2004)

Market Profile/Meta Profile History 1985 - 2004 is a review. (2004)

Auction Market Value Theory is, we believe, the first comprehensive theory of auction markets. Economists for long have held to the Sharpe-Markowitz gaussian distribution theory for equities (Capital Market Theory, or CAPM). Their idea that the market was an equilibrium structure has proved wrong. Steidlmayer and Koy, Markets and Market Logic, brought forth many elegant insights about markets and how they function. But there is no objective theory in their work. Possibly the most comprehensive study of problems with CAPM is Why Stock Markets Crash, by Sornette. That study gave us the courage to develop an axiom based theory. (2005)

One of the first findings to come from Auction Market Value Theory was The Market Unit, a detailed study of the market cycle, balance, trend, balance, trend, etc. There it was shown that a balance - trend - balance cycle could four days, seventeen days or any other period. There is no regularity to the periods. a first conclusion is that the standard moving average smoothing is just wrong because there is no internal cycle to smooth. Newer version above: Financial Markets Auction Market Value Theory. (2005)

Market Waves are not Cycles is an application of the Market Unit finding, addresses technical analysis--to the detriment of technical analysis. (2005)

Meta-Profile for Day Trading is another follow-on of Auction Theory. (2005)

Day Trading with Market Value is a continuation study, comparing Meta and Market Profiles. (2005)

Markets Do Not Turn on a Dime examines the time the market takes to change it's mind. Usually this is several TPO periods. (2005)

An example of combining Visual Graphic for the set up and Meta-Profile for the intra-day information, this is an example of a strategy analysis using the Visual Graphic (5/16) and then the current day profile. This is the first of a two day set. (2005)
Follow-up for Visual Graphic of 5/17 (trading on 5/18). (2005)

Day Trading the London Subway Blast is a study in herd instinct trading. There was a great amount of potential for the value trader. (2005)

Pattern Day Trading. Use of the bell shaped distribution. Much of this is superceded by the later Dialogue on Two Systems (2007). (2005)

Pivot Points and Candlesticks critiques. On the basis of profile/value theory neither of these trading methodologies have much utility. (2005)

Three Major Auction Market Discoveries explore the basics of Financial Markets Auction Market Value Theory. (2005)

Financial Markets Auction Market Value Theory. (2005)

Five Billion Dollar Loss on Natural Gas Trading is a study in point of 'winging it' instead of following value principles. (2006)

Drawdown Studies with Advice Engine. An update. Drawdown measure is based on the Advice Engine record. Balances with their upper and lower limits and the risk, are listed one day and checked the next day to see if breakout occurred. If they broke out, the Potential of the run (how far it went after breakout) is compared to the original risk. this is a measure of validity of the Advice Engine method. While not a trading model, the average size of the Potential, compared to the risk, is an objective measure of the validity of the selections in the table. This is a 'Proof of Principle' measure: i.e. do I want to spend time developing a model from Advice Engine data? How often does a trader have an opportunity to set out to develop a model from a methodology that has undergone Proof of Principle testing? (2006)
Advice Engine Search Background Info

Short Term Congestion. Run-pause congestion analysis is introduced for the very short term, 15 to 45 minutes. Each trading day offers an average of three run-pause cycles. Trading decision making is helped by knowing what the market is doing intra-day. (2007)
The Run Pause Profile (tm)

Value Analytics offers a major change to profile analysis. Heretofore profile analysis was principally day oriented. Now profile reference points are treated as flow variables; how they change over the last three days is more important than their latest day value. How can this be? It is simply that short-timeframe, intra-day situations can quickly develop and as quickly fade away; not affecting the overall market condition at all. A blip; here today, gone tomorrow. (2007)
Value Analytics: A New Departure in Profile Analysis
Value Analytics Background

The Three Day Balance Rule requires a three consecutive day set of data to define balance. (2007)
Profile Value Area Three Day Rule

Dialogue on the Two Systems compares holism in the basic profile analyses with the objectivism of critical value analysis as in the Three Day Rule. (2007)

The common thread running through all our studies is validity of the data. If trading is to be a science, the data used in the analyses must be valid. The original Market Profile analyses, and still today, treats any calculated value area as a valid measure of value; with further analyses proceeding from that assumption. But our work on Market Condition has shown that a one day snapshot profile may not be representative of a market and often is not. Consequently, relying on simple reference points (point of control, value area) can give a totally misleading read of a market. If your data is not valid, how can you possibly succeed by following it?

All References listed in the article can be read here https://web.archive.org/web/20151107023956/http://www.cisco-futures.com/References.html

Hi Mrs. Vega.

First of all. Huge amount of work you did here. Thank You.

I wanted to post that GBPJPY chart yesterday. But since I am half way through this thread and not even half-way thru this journey I felt posting it would be way too bold at this stage. Also it might be just simple luck .

I have read MOM and M- in- P, about to finish VBPT. I will take my time before I make any comments.

However I would appreciate Some clues regarding this Export function in this MP-multi composite profiles indi , that does not appear to be working in my Mt4 build 1031.
There are .DAT files appearing in FIles folder but 1 kb each, somehow empty.

Regards,
Max

It's good to hear you have read MOM. M in P, is not one I usually recommend as it is imo ambiguous at best.
However, as you read VBPT you should have realized by now that VBPT is about "why" we do not use MP methodology. You don't want to learn how to trade using MP. You want to understand it's "directional performance analysis" used for daily EOD analysis. You want to understand each of it's references. MOM is used for understanding the behavior of each of the different market participants. As well as the references and what it is they measure. With each of the references fully understood, then vbpt starts to process of how to organize, read, and use that info for analysis.

The export feature works fine using both builds. The step by steps instructions can be found in several places throughout the thread. I myself have posted the info, more than once, as well as others............

Thanks for response mzvega. I have found the export files.

Regarding VBPT- I hear you - that is why i moved on in this journey. On from MP. Days of efforts , unability to apply MP to find any pattern.
I believe this how the evolution goes.

How the sickness started for me - I was just fed up with that bars on my screen. Meaningless touches.

BTW, MinP makes you realize you are wasting time with MP.

Best Regards.