[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sp500 update



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

I once read somewhere that volume and Average True Range are highly
correlated.  I've never done a study that confirms or denies this
statement.  ATR is a lot more versatile for use in a system, though. 
I've not encountered anything that contradicts this claim.  Any
comments?

BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> 
> I thought that there was always some kind of a secret that could unlock the
> riddle of trading in Volume and Open Interest. But after years of looking
> there are only a few week applications that have made sense. Here is one if
> the V is up and the OI is up and the prices is up then the trend if up is
> confirmed. Just turn that around V up OI up and Price down a down trend is
> confirmed.
> 
> Brent
> 
> ----------
> > From: charles meyer <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
> > To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: sp500 update
> > Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 7:21 AM
> >
> > Ben, Earl, & Group:
> >
> >  The most striking aspect of
> > > this huge rally is the lack of volume and failure of OBV to confirm the
> > > rally - this is especially noticeable in the S&P futures and SPY.
> >
> > Anyone out there who has been able to solve the riddle of the inter-
> > relationship between price and volume?  I am a Wyckoff student--before
> > that a Don Wordon student.  I have a great file on volume information
> > but am baffled and confounded by Earl's observation; have been for a
> > long time.  The Wyckoff explanation just doesn't seem to work in real
> > time--volume can be very misleading.  I always wanted to believe Joe
> > Granville's statement that 'price leads volume' but can't get a handle on
> > how to trade it.  Perhaps the best answer, from someone I respect, was
> > the idea that I put too much emphasis on volume.  Seems it is so easy
> > to manipulate volume and the stats are skewed by program trading and
> > option activity.  Comments?
> >
> > Charles.
> >