ES Wednesday 11-5-14

my overall concern is that all that were short could cover and drive market up quicker than I like in the first few minutes.......2017 is my dividing line between the magnets of 2013 and 2021.25...my gut feel is that we will see the 21.25. Today I will once again be using the opening range as a filter as we are set to open outside of YD value area and range...watch 2011 - 2013 for possible support ...here is some video babble.......it only took me 3 tries to convey what I wanted to say without flubbing it up too much today...

yes this is what I am leaning towards also even though haggerty doesn't

Originally posted by NewKid

I would imagine that using number of trading days makes more sense than using calendar days. So I would use 250 days instead of 365.

This gives us a multiplier of 0.063 instead of 0.052

Thoughts?

p10 in the following article "Putting volatility to work" uses 252 days...
http://www.ivolatility.com/news/Putting_volatility_to_work.pdf

Originally posted by BruceM

yes this is what I am leaning towards also even though haggerty doesn't

Originally posted by NewKid

I would imagine that using number of trading days makes more sense than using calendar days. So I would use 250 days instead of 365.

This gives us a multiplier of 0.063 instead of 0.052

Thoughts?

i just took 52 weeks, so 52 * 5 = 20 days and assumed 10 holidays to get 250.

252 seems like a more accurate number. I am almost done putting the spreadsheet together and the number of days is a variable so should be easy enough to change :)

that's a keeper....thanks stockster

Originally posted by stocksster

p10 in the following article "Putting volatility to work" uses 252 days...
http://www.ivolatility.com/news/Putting_volatility_to_work.pdf

Originally posted by BruceM

yes this is what I am leaning towards also even though haggerty doesn't

Originally posted by NewKid

I would imagine that using number of trading days makes more sense than using calendar days. So I would use 250 days instead of 365.

This gives us a multiplier of 0.063 instead of 0.052

Thoughts?