Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.
ljyoung
-
Content Count
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
As I attempted to clarify earlier and will do so again now, the use of the terminology 'in between' has less to do the with the speed of the fractal and more to do with the functional (read visual) position of the fractal. There was not then nor is there now any argument about the internal structure of the fractal. If others do not see the situation like this then they are most welcome to construct their own way of describing what is before them.
-
An invalidated turning point (incompletion in the face of completion) is frequently due to a neglected IT or LT RTL which as best I can ascertain was the case here.
-
The close of the bar in question is NOT in the overlap zone. Look at Jack's CP4. It's all laid out there. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?
-
I agree with romanus and ehorn that the first leg up is done. The termination was quick and clean as opposed to the schlock we have been wading through (as 5 min ES traders) for the past few days.
-
No. Definitely sleep deficit which admittedly can be a pathway to previously unexplored realms of the mind. In fact I was thinking of your 8-26 chart. Which RTL are you speaking of, aside from which such an event [bounce - no bounce] sounds like a consequence of something?
-
Hey rs5. Not that it's particularly of consequence but my thanks to you was occasioned by not enough sleep and pressing the wrong icon:doh:. In any case your original interpretation though not unreasonable was erroneous but you already know that. If I might be so bold as to suggest that if you can determine why the FTT at 13:20 on 8-26 was faux for a traverse completion while the FTT at 11:05 on 8-27 was not, then deciphering the myriad of x2x2y2x sequences may become more straightforward. IMO, rigorous attention to how one draws one's tapes and hence constructs one's channel lines can facilitate the correct deconvolution of the Gaussians. The two are inextricably linked.
-
Our charts are quite different but I do see what you are saying. cnms2's 'slide' is a quick way to see that there was no completion but that is also evident without 'sliding'. FWIW, the uptape I am referring to began late in the afternoon of 8-19 and is still incomplete.
-
Another approach would be to ask yourself whether there was evidence of completion of the uptape at EOD yesterday. If you thought yes then it would appear that you were wrong. Then the question becomes, why. If you saw no evidence for completion, then this AM was simply the making of yet another P2 and at EOD today you ask yourself the same question you did yesterday. Has there been completion?
-
The reason I don't post charts on this thread is because I formulate the Gaussian distributions in my head. The reason why I formulate the Gaussian distributions in my head has been elaborated on elsewhere and will not be repeated here. I am not and never have advised anyone to do what I do with respect to anything having to do with the theory or the method. That said, when you look at a 'stick bar' chart taken in isolation there exists the possibility that when context is superimposed (like the bar OHLC, like the presence of other constructions, etc.), the answers to your questions will become apparent.
-
You have said it yourself that the 13:10 bar can't be a P3 on your trading fractal which is exactly what I said, albeit in a slightly different fashion. You could fan out the RTL (because the break was made on increased volume) only after the 'new' P2 was made. So was the fact that you couldn't construct an FTT with the 13:10 bar in effect telling you that it couldn't be the 'real' P3 and that you should anticipate a 'new' P2 somewhere down the road, which is in fact what heppened?
-
There are two processes taking place here (as there always are), an upthing and a downthing. The downthing broke (pierced and closed below) the RTL of the upthing but that's as far as it went because the downthing had completed. Multiple b2b's followed, occasioning, due to the magnitude of the price change, a fanout of the upthing RTL and the creation of a 'new' P2 for the upthing. The terminal bar of the completed downthing was in fact a 'new' P3 of the upthing but as we have already noted, a 'new' P2 for the upthing has been formed and so now we are looking for another 'new' P3 for the upthing. As to your question as to why this entire process was not associated with an FTT of the 'downthing', one answer would be another question. Why should it be?
-
The b2b is intrabar.
-
In this particular case you don't need Gaussians to understand what is being said. Use Spyder's Gaussian representations. While at first glance Jack's chart - without the Gaussians - may appear rather trivial, I assure you it isn't. In fact it readily explains one of your questions from earlier today. Figure it out.
-
rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.
-
Open and Free Discussion on Volume
ljyoung replied to brownsfan019's topic in The Candlestick Corner
Thanks for your input Hal. Anyone can say whatever they want in response to my questions. If you are an edge trader you use stops and targets and that's just the way it is and I agree it is non-trivial.