Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
That is indeed a problem when the same tool act differently on different platforms. This means that each platform is doing their own calculation, their own view of the tool.
For example, one that messes traders is the cumulative tick volume. SC have a complete different calculation when compared with IRT. This is very problematic. Cumulative bid/ask volume is identical but the tick version isn't? I remember ask SC staff about this and their answer couldn't have be more explicit - our calculations are the correct one, this is the way we feel the calculations should be done.
Now my questions is, which is the correct one? Apparently Gomi version for Ninja is identical to IRT. Can we say IRT and Gomi are wrong and SC is correct?
How can we trust a tool in which there's no consensus in it's calculations?
If I become half a percent smarter each year, I'll be a genius by the time I die
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
I don't use delta based on ticks, only based on volume, so it really don't bother me the differences between platforms, but I know a couple of traders that do use both and they continue to stick with IRT and MD because, according to them, they are the ones that are calculating it correctly.
So here's an example since I still have SC available for the next 2 weeks.
EDIT: Why bother cusp?
I thought we were having here a healthy discussion about SC and it's pros and cons.
We might help people decide when they start to search for a new chart platform.
If I become half a percent smarter each year, I'll be a genius by the time I die
Basically, many tasks have an inverse relationship between CPU time and memory usage, so as CPU usage decreases, memory usage increases, and vice verci. Depending on the needs for the software either can be exploited, so its an engineering decision. There is also the capability to store things on the hard drive rather than system memory, but this typically has slower performance.
With memory being so cheap these days I would usually choose faster CPU performance, but its a personal preference really and depends on the application. Usually you won't run into neither cpu nor memory issues on a mid-range PC purchased today but for some applications you still test the limitations of the hardware. I was a research assistant for awhile and we would routinely use up all our 12 GB of memory on our local PC's running image processing algorithms for example so we had to either use a high-performance computing cluster (and wait for everyone and their dog to finish their previously queued jobs) or "engineer" our algorithm to fit within the memory constraints.
The deletion and the "why bother" reflected the lack of content in my post. In other words, why fall into the
"Honey, sorry I can't come to bed yet." ....
"Why dear?" ....
"Someone is wrong on the internet!"
trap. In that case I thought doing some work was more productive.
However it's nice to see that @slickiam (nice name) had done the extra work. I'll quote the post he referenced:
On that basis I don't think the Sierra guys will change it
Personally I don't use market or volume profiles. I've looked at them but find multi-timeframe supply and demand zones give me a better trading tool. I do have a fair bit of customization and some automation and some trading direct from Sierra. Like others I also use more than one copy. For me Sierra Chart has been a very satisfactory product.
Broker: Advantage, Trading Technologies, OptionsCity, IQ Feed
Trading: CL, NG
Posts: 1,038 since Jul 2010
Thanks Given: 1,713
Thanks Received: 3,863
That "indicator" was rounded to a 5 tick setting... This is why it is appearing to be higher than price. In reality, price was higher than the VAH. The referenced lines were simply well... reference points. MP isn't just about the Value and POC areas... There's nothing wrong with Sierra's indicators.
Broker: Advantage, Trading Technologies, OptionsCity, IQ Feed
Trading: CL, NG
Posts: 1,038 since Jul 2010
Thanks Given: 1,713
Thanks Received: 3,863
Sierra is an excellent platform and far superior than most available. I left NT quite a while back and could not be happier with Sierra. I was evaluating between Market Delta and Sierra and went with Sierra for a variety of reasons.
PB, do you use the sierra DOM? Could you take a screen shot, and anyone else who uses it? I am experimenting and have this currently, but am looking to eliminate that big space on the bottom left and fill it with something more useful.
well, like I said, I saw something strange and only wanted to know if anybody made some comparison with other platforms. I never said it's just about value or poc, nor did I say that sierra's indicators are wrong.
but thanks anyway. aes isch hoechschti isaebahn fuer mi.
Ninja Trader's Customer Service is spectacular, the moment you own or lease the license, even in the evening or on the weekend. I often had to wait days to hear back from SC.
ETA: NT needs to catch up in the Market Profile area, and maybe they will in the next release.
The fact that so many brilliant coders use NT and generously share their gifts means it's a party every day.