The axioms of financial market analysis (or the whole truth about the right and wrong use of indicators) - page 3

 
10937:

It does not matter what forum we are communicating with you, Metaquotes or any other forum, even if it is a chess forum. My topic is unambiguous, it concerns the analysis of financial markets, and it does not matter what platform you work on (even if you draw charts by hand and trade on the phone). You do not like the volumes in MT, then take the volumes of the real stock markets and learn to apply them! I would also advise you to trade in real stock markets. Where there are: real volumes, stock market depth, laws, where the broker is not a party interested in the losses of its own clients (sorry, the correct interpretation: your broker is a liquidity provider for you), guarantees the return of the deposit in case of bankruptcy of the broker, and so on ... but these all details are not for this branch of the forum.

And excuse me, to say that the volume does not support anything, because I use "coffee maker" to receive and analyze volumes, and not the information from the exchange ... that sounds strange ... even!!! Maybe "COFEMOLKA" is to blame. ?..... so change it to a normal exchange terminal!!!!

So on the exchange the "real" volumes only go up when the price moves in the direction of the trend ? Where are the volumes on the opposite movement? This begs the question - whose "coffee grinder" is REAL? :-D
 
MigVRN:

I completely agree with this interpretation:

All other assumptions (hypotheses) are based on these axioms. And everyone decides for himself whether to believe in these 3 whales or not...

"Market price movements account for all information"is an axiom

And this is its interpretation:
"According to thisaxiom, all information that influences the price of a commodity has already been taken into account in the price and the volume of trading itself, and there is no need to study the dependence of the price on political, economic and other factors separately. It is sufficient to concentrate on the study of price/volume dynamics and get information aboutthe most likely development of the market. "

Something makes me have great doubts about the correctness of THIS interpretation.

As far as I know, there are TWO types of analysis to achieve REAL knowledge: analysis of SIGNIFICANCE (meaning) and analysis of LAW (condition).
In more detail, LAW is the Causal and the Origin of the fruit (result) of the cause and MEANING is the RESULT (fruit of the cause).

What I have written here is some introductory information. Now to the point.

The interpretation of the axiom contains this phrase: "...information that affects the price of a commodity,...". So, I believe that the volume of bidding is also "information" affecting the price. In other words, a thorough knowledge of bidding volume is an analysis of the law, i.e. a cause and effect analysis. In the same way, a thorough knowledge of the "news" (the fundamentals) is an analysis of the law.

And the PRICE itself (its value), a thorough knowledge of it, is an analysis of value.

And the main conclusion of the above. What did Dow want to say with this axiom? He wanted to say this:

There is no need to analyze the law, i.e. volumes and (or) the foundation, but suffices to analyze the price, its value.

Volumes and foundations are already factored into the value of the price.

 
10937:

I would also advise you to trade on the real stock markets.

I'm afraid for that I need to "swing" my $10 on fake MT volumes first :-D
 
mmmoguschiy:
I'm afraid to do that I need to "swing" my $10 on fake MT volumes first :-D
What's the big deal about volumes? There is an opinion that you can do without them.
 
ratnasambhava:
What's the big deal about volumes? There's an opinion that you can do without them.
I'm afraid it is! It's the real volumes and the real glass, when read correctly, can tell you the whole truth about the market!

As far as the axiom is concerned, the growth of "real" volumes coincides with the trend over a certain period of time, and the peak of the volumes is just at the level of a possible reversal or correction. But it does not always happen. If it were that simple, all 90% of traders would not leave money with 10%)
 
mmmoguschiy:
I'm afraid I've converged! It is the real volumes and the real glass, if read correctly, that can tell you the true state of affairs in the market!

As far as the axiom is concerned, the growth of "real" volumes coincides with the trend over a certain period of time, and the peak of the volumes is just at the level of a possible reversal or correction. But it does not always happen. If it were that simple, all 90% of traders would not leave money with 10%)

Well, I wrote above that if you want volume, then volume, if you want foundation, then foundation, if you want price, then price, and if you want, you can combine them.

And as for Dow's axiom "about trends", in this context (in the context of this axiom) I would equate the word TENDENCY with the word INERTION.

 
ratnasambhava:

I have great doubts about the correctness of this interpretation.

As far as I know, there are two types of analysis to achieve REAL knowledge: analysis of SIGNIFICANCE (meaning) and analysis of LAW (condition).
In more detail, the LAW is the Causality and the DEVELOPMENT of the fruit (result) of the cause, and the SIGNIFICANCE is the RESULT (fruit of the cause).

What I have written here is some introductory information. Now to the point.

The interpretation of the axiom contains this phrase: "...information affecting the price of a commodity,...". So, I believe that the volume of bidding is also "information" affecting the price. In other words, a thorough knowledge of bidding volume is an analysis of the law, i.e. a cause and effect analysis. In the same way, a thorough knowledge of the "news" (the fundamentals) is an analysis of the law.

And the PRICE itself (its value), a thorough knowledge of it, is an analysis of value.

And the main conclusion of the above. What did Dow want to say with this axiom? He wanted to say this:

There is no need to analyze the law, i.e. volumes and (or) the foundation, but suffices to analyze the price, its value.

Volumes and foundations are already factored into the value of the price.

Unfortunately I cannot agree with you!!!

Price is only a consequence, so to speak, price is a lagging indicator !!! The progenitors of the price are: the flow of orders (the strip) and the volume of deals, and then all this is displayed on the chart as a price! You can study the behaviour of prices and this will of course give you a working trading system! But if you add volume to price, you will get an advantage over those who do not use it, if you can also analyze the tape (order flow), then you are the king of the market! ))))

 
10937:

Unfortunately I cannot agree with you!!!

Price is only a consequence, so to speak, price is a lagging indicator!!! The progenitors of the price are: the flow of orders (the tape) and the volume of transactions, and then all this is displayed on the chart in the form of price!!! You can study the behaviour of prices and this will of course give you a working trading system! But if you add volume to price, you will get an advantage over those who do not use it, if you can also analyze the tape (order flow), then you are the king of the market! ))))

The more measurements you can decipher and apply, the more accurate the trade will be.

There is more than just volumes and streams

 
Alexey:

The more measurements you decipher and can apply, the more accurate the trade will be.

It's not all about volumes and flows

So how does it end there? can you explain?

(Your post seems to be useless ... like you know that there are some more details, but to describe these details you have suddenly run out of letters)

 
10937:

So how does it end there? Can you explain?

(because your post seems to be a bit useless...like you know that there are still some details, but you suddenly ran out of letters to describe these details)

I could, but I'd have to write an article for that, the answer would be too big for a simple forum post. And I don't feel like it.
Reason: