FR H-Volatility - page 27

 
Mathemat:
Yes, Vinin, I agree, there is no such consistency (you can see it on the daily data - the volume varies from 4 to 13 thousand). So, we can try to normalize the volume within the equivolume bar by some average of the actual volume over a longer period.

Now, this is more interesting and I can go into more detail. Although I don't know if it is possible. (I'm worried about "fat tails", and in this approach it is possible to get away from them, although I have to check).
 
Neutron:
Looking at the figure, there is a noticeably greater relationship between the price increments in the OM coordinates.
Yes, at times up to 10 minutes. From there it is more the other way around. I will propose a hypothesis: for movements close in amplitude to the spread, the discreteness of price changes is the main factor. Or vice versa: the spread will be selected so as to cover the influence of the price change discreteness.
 
Vinin:
This requires the number of ticks per unit of time to be constant on average. And what happens if it increases slightly over time?


I see, I think I've also come to the same conclusion that the number of ticks in a bar should be adjusted. As for the gradual increase in the number of bars. Well, what the hell with the increase, we had 1440 bars in a week (ticks), switched to ticks=5 and got 5677 bars, that's OK (we will just have 2 archives). It is a pity that only MT4 does not give us quote history in such a form and charts in such a representation too. I.e. to restore the evo-volume bars we need tick history :(.+ to redo everything manually (programmatically) and recalculate with tick arrival.

Movement is multidimensional and multidimensional, so you need to analyse it in different n-dimensions. And man has not yet invented anything better than visual analysis. I would like to see moving pictures

 

Mathemat, look here, the figure shows the volume distribution for hourly EUR/USD bars:

On the abscissa axis is the number of ticks per bar, on the ordinate axis is the relative number of such bars in the sample. Well, with such a wide distribution, how can we hope for the adequacy of the proposed transformation?

 
lna01:
Yes, for times up to ten minutes. Further on it is more the other way round. I will propose a hypothesis: for moves close in amplitude to the spread, the price change discrecity is the main factor. Or vice versa: the spread will be selected so as to cover the influence of the price change discreteness.


:-))

Are we going to look for a key lost somewhere under a lantern?

 
There is another significant point: perhaps the autocorrelation function for equaltic bars is stationary to a substantially greater extent. Then averaging (and I assume it is the averaged curves in the figure) will extract the information it contains. But for a substantially non-stationary one, it destroys it.

P.S. Under the lantern, there are rather equilibrium bars. That seems to be the attraction :)
 
lna01:
Neutron:
Looking at the figure, there is a noticeably large relationship between the price increments in the OM coordinates.
Yes, at times up to 10 minutes. Further it is rather vice versa. I will propose a hypothesis: for movements close in amplitude to the spread, the discreteness of price changes is the main factor. Or vice versa: the spread will be selected so as to cover the influence of price change discreteness.


How does the ADC (anno-discrete converter) spread suppress ADC noise. ? But then if the discretisation step (by price) is 4th decimal place. How can we explain different spreads for different currencies if the step is the same?

I think it's simpler than that. The spread is chosen on the basis of the dispersion of the incoming price stream for the brokerage company

 
lna01:
There is another important point: perhaps the autocorrelation function for equaltic bars is stationary to a substantially greater degree. Then averaging (and I assume it is the averaged curves in the figure) will extract the information contained in it. But for a substantially non-stationary one, it destroys it.

P.S. Under the lantern, there are rather equilibrium bars. That seems to be the attraction :)

I'm all for that too. The lantern is exactly there, everything is smoother there less catastrophic. And how many bars I have in this case on the screen what difference does it make.
 

Neutron, I see. It can't be nice and fluffy, much less sharp, but you can still at least look at such an equivolume chart with an eye. It will obviously become different.

And then, let's add a simple envelope to it. What do you think it will turn out? (My hypothesis is almost a Bollinger! Or rather, a Bollinger will become almost an envelope.) Exactly - an envelope, because I hope the volatility flattens out andthe p.d.f. of the obtained returns is closer to the Gaussian one.

 
Prival:

I think it's simpler than that. The spread is chosen based on the variance of the incoming price stream for the brokerage house

Basically yes. But at the lower end the variance is likely to be dominated by the noise associated with the discreteness of the price change.
Reason: