To determine the proper time frame that the market is marching to, price and time (space) must be considered. Otherwise it is impossible for “gravity waves” to resonate properly.

Time must correspond to a former high/low.

>Therefore its important to categorize trends as primary,

>intermediate and short-term trends

I am a little bit sceptical about short-term tends because in the short term it is volatility (noise) what dominates.

But I agree that it is worth looking at finer time scale. E.g. from recent history: oil was on the strong long-term downtrend but the intraday fluctuation (upto 10%) could not be neglected.

Vasily Nekrasov "I am a little bit sceptical about short-term tends because in the short term it is volatility (noise) what dominates."

One man's noise is another man's signal.

Robert Remen http://www.e-m-h.org/Blac86.pdf

Vasily, great paper. Thanks for bringing it up. It does make your point.

Problem is, the difference between timeframes is larger than your stop loss - if this makes any sense. Another thing is, tradable trends are rarely syncrhonized across timeframes.

What's the best time frame ranging from 1 minute to 1440 minutes and beyond? Well that's subjective, dynamic, always changing. So, you could define the length of time series by fixed number of ticks/pips to negate effect of always changing "good/right" time frame.

I disagree. The time frame chosen is strictly objective in nature. There is a finite number of possible outcomes within each time frame. The probabilities for certain outcomes within a time frame can be calculated accurately. The "correct" time frame depends on profit targets and a traders risk management system. http://miltonfmr.com/applied-statistics-futures-markets/

The problem with multiple time frame (MTF) analysis is that it is too subjective in defining a trend AFTER it has occurred. It still doesn't define the trend clearly and consistently. APAMI already provides an objective, price-only method to measure price trends, primarily because there is no timeframe consideration.

No such thing as noise. All the price movement occurs for a reason, even if there isn't an immediate explanation of that movement.

@Jon, may I suggest you read @Vasily's recommended paper listed above: “NOISE”, by Black. For your convenience, here is the link again: http://www.e-m-h.org/Blac86.pdf

You will find it hard to regret “noise” after that.

Supply and Demand levels are not defined by time frames they are derived from price alone, once you have your S&D levels mapped out on your charts then the time frames doesn't matter as you are focused on the correct aspect...Price!!

S&D levels can be supply for one and demand for the other irrespective of where price action takes place. In my opinion timeframe analysis should be considered an important part of the assessment of your context. The question doesn't start by which levels but by where do we come from and where are we going to.

The big moves happen when timeframes pile on top of each other.

I agree with Marko s comment. The timeframe traded is a function of the moves you choose to trade. It influences you stop position and your target levels. As a intraday swing trader why would you go for a 100 tick target if your market has an average daily range of 50 ticks?

Nice piece! You will learn to appreciate the beauty of using multiple timeframes in your analysis when different technical patterns formed on these different timeframes of a given currency pair, all points towards either BULLISH or BEARISH context. They all tell the same story but from different perspectives which will at the end of the day give you a balanced analysis and also help in scaling in your positions as the trade develops.