I can't show charts but can illustrate my point with a simple, though contrived, example.
In the middle of the diagram below is a profile. Not only that, it is the archetypal, Platonic Form of profiles, so it should represent a perfectly balanced market with the Value Area being truly reflective of the consensus of fair value.
On the left and right are two split profiles, each of which could have produced the Platonic Profile. Do you think they are equivalent? On the right, the split profile is an uptrend: every subsequent bar has a higher high and higher low. The Value Area does not reflect consensus and should not be trusted as a basis for taking trades. The split profile on the left does reflect a balanced market.
The difference between the two is price rotatation. You wouldn't know the different implications of the profile unless you "unpacked" it.
I prefer to look at the price bars first, decide if the price action reflects a balanced market and plot a profile if it does, so I would have drawn a profile for the left-hand price action, but not the second.
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).
The following 6 users say Thank You to erniebilko for this post:
I think you're asking if I calculate the Value Area using the standard MP algorithm? If so, then the answer is No. I think the details of any indicator are less important than understanding what you intend it to show and how you will use it.
In my case, I know I want to trade within the extreme highs and lows of a balance and simply need a consistent method of delimiting the Value Area of fair prices from the unfair highs and lows. There are many ways of doing this and all are somewhat arbitrary - the market neither knows nor cares which prices you choose to define the limits of value, so these prices are only of interest to you.
The following user says Thank You to erniebilko for this post: