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
Everything posted by ljyoung
-
As I've said above I appreciate your view of the market. Your statement above presumes that you know how I view the market. Maybe you do and maybe you don't. I don't really care. The test of my hypothesis about things which differentiate tapes from traverses simply failed. You know how that goes I'm sure. Some months ago our mutual mentor mentioned that the ability to differentiate tapes from traverses is something which is problematic for many (dare I say most) of the devotees of the method (I am paraphrasing here). Certainly one of da t'ings I have learned this go round is how muy grande the tapes can be and all for a very good reason. Right now (as I write) we are in one of those steenking laterals which thanks to your iterative efforts have become much more tolerable. It actually appeared that change was a comin' from inside the lateral but we know that we have to wait. Perhaps change has arrived now.
-
I am well aware that the interpretation was invalid. What I am presently doing is determining why that was so by focussing on discovering the meaningful differences between romanus' and ehorn's Gaussians and their associated trendlines.
-
Neapolitan dynamite, nicotine and a few cleansing hacks later, let me iterate once again. If what we had starting yesterday AM through today was: [up tape, down tape, up tape], [down tape, up tape], then what we are looking for is a down tape to complete a down traverse. Thank you ehorn. Iteration is good for the soul. FWIW, my response to my earlier question to you about where to enter long would be, "Don't enter long. Wait for the short entry."
-
Being lazy and flling in the quote. I trust you had a tasty lunch. If you wouldn't mind, a practical question. How do you decide where to re-enter the market given that we are in up tape mode? Just anywhere and hold long or is there a specific point? TIA
-
For those of you out there who don't know what is going on, ehorn is saying that he believes the market validated his interpretation of last evening. The way I interpret ehorn's interpretation is that the critters constructed by the market were firstly a down tape and then an up tape. This AM then the market MUST form a down tape. That's what it's been doing. So where did romanus and me screw up? Was it in calling the entity which preceded the down tape, a traverse? Or was it in the interpretation of the snippet itself? For the moment the latter has been chosen. Another possibility is that ehorn is wrong and that the construct formed from 15:45 on, is a traverse. Everyone should be able to see that this idea is DEAD wrong. So if we are doing a down tape/up tape/down tape thingy, then that will eventually give us a down traverse and then we will start building an up traverse. So what about ehorn's expessed logic in so far as explaining why he deduced tape not traverse? The best place to look, IMO, is in his Gaussians which are wildly different from romanus'. Do his Gaussians unequivocally show why his call was correct? Just caught your morning so far ehorn. Congrats.
-
The reference to going with romanus was not pulled out of the ether. It was simply a statement of agreement with his logic. It had nothing to do with being right or wrong, good or bad, etc. If the market shows his/my interpretation to be in error, then it simply means more work has to be done which, these days, typically involves correcting a fork error. For me, the YM low at 6:54 finished the 'traverse' call. ES followed suit shortly thereafter. It is very clear to me Spyder, that since June of 2006, you have been iterated countless times by the market. That the market will continue to do so to you and others is not surprising. Your help is greatly appreciated but there is likewise no doubt in my mind, that you have been helped by the contributions of everyone else studying the method. So let's see. WMCN?
-
Gotta go with romanus. Let's see.
-
Thanks innersky. I needed that.
-
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't remember Spyder mentioning the IBGS effect, so, IMO, it may or may not be operative.
-
Am in complete agreement with this. Thanks for your explanation.
-
Ehorn, Why did you terminate the 11:00 lateral at 11:20 or was that just a software artifact?
-
Have you read and understood this paper? Channels_for_BW_v2.2.pdf
-
Here's one more imitation strawberry poptart of a question for Sunday morning. Can the highest pace bar of a 5 min ES traverse ever be the point 1, point 2 or point 3 of that traverse? Now I will take your leave and journey north to install the dreaded Vista on my wife's new computer. Gak. What a wretched OS but from what I hear Windows 7 is a bit of a pearl and set for public release soon. Have a good day. PS: Yes, that's me. The little nerd in the back with red hair, freckles and coke-bottle spectacles. The only stupid question is the question left unasked. If cnms2 can get poetic, then so too pour moi.
-
The 'polarity' of a bar appears to have some consequences as evidenced by the discussion between romanus and myself. It would seem that both of the situations described are possible and acceptable under the correct conditions. By polarity is meant that for a rising black bar (as distinct from an IBGS bar) P1 is at the bottom and P2 at the top, while for a falling red bar the opposite is true. Does anyone know of other situations where attention to the polarity is important? Again, with the discussion noted above, its consideration affected how a Gaussian was read.
-
Thanks romanus. Your argument is based on the assumption that points 1, 2, and 3 of the 'primordial' tape must be located on 2 bars and if that were so, then I would have to agree that yours and ehorn's interpretation was the favoured one. However in this post The Price / Volume Relationship - Page 15 Spyder shows that it is not the case that points 1, 2, and 3 only be on 2 bars of a primordial tape. Now as luck would have in the example we are talking about, the 2 bar tape between bars 4 and 5 forms a perfect "LTL" tape , if you will. By my read an "LTL" bar behaves more like a "VE" bar, so I am comfortable with putting point 2 at the bottom of bar 5. Like you though, what I have adopted is a working hypothesis and I would, as always, delight in having someone trash it.
-
Thank you for posting ehorn. My effort is very similar to yours but one spot where we differ is the bar on which the first down tape begins. Both you and romanus, who posted elsewhere, start at bar 5 whereas I started at bar 4. Bar 4 shows a decrease in pace compared to bar 3 and fails to reach the LTL of both the 2 bar tape (bars 3 and 4) and the 4 bar tape (bars 1 through 4). This way of describing things also gives a very nice "r"2 r involving bars 4, 5, and 6. Could you, or anyone else explain which interpretation should be favoured? TIA Note: Tapes were drawn using NT's 'line tool' with colors and line type for illustrative purposes only.
-
I'm watching Aronofsky's "π". Thank God it's tonight and not 6 months ago or God knows where I'd be (heh, heh). It got me thinking about what we have been discussing and as is often the case, the old man pops up with his set of 'terminators' (my word for want of a better term) and then he vanishes into n-dimensional vector space or wherever it is that he hangs out. Three of the five are the pennants. If you have a third inside bar then you are 'stuck' in the traverse but if you immediately 'break out' of the pennant, then the possible consequences can be quite different if the circumstances are appropriate. Since stitches are just 'reverse pennants' the same logic can apply to them. The trendlines, if you will, associated with the pennants are going to be of particular consequence depending on whether or not you are in a trend which 'matches' the trendlines of the pennant. I think this is what Spyder was talking about in his earlier post. Please note that this is merely my opinion and is not to be construed in any other way.
-
You may be playing with definitions. I'm not BUT you'd better know whatTF a P1, a P2 and a P3 are. What I'm talking about is knowing whereTF you are in terms of the fractal on which you are trading. Talking about the 'movement of price from P2 to P3' is meaningless unless you know where you are in terms of the sequence of the fractal on which you are trading. This thread is about the 5 min ES traverse trading fractal unless I've missed something. Read romanus' stuff in this thread and see if that doesn't help. Thank you Spyder. Without your help I would not be able to see more clearly (not perfectly as yet) what the real PV is.
-
FYI, that is precisely what I am doing. EVERYTHING about which I spoke is Boolean. That, as you know, is what NO PREDICTION means. Science, as it develops, may or may not have to do with Booleans, but the end point should be a Boolean, if at all possible. Sometimes, for a time, it isn't possible but that is another discussion for another thread. So back to topic which is laterals. Sure looks to me like we had one of those unambiguous change in dominance thingies. So there's got to be a P2 and a P3 leading up to the P1 and we are talking about a traverse in this instance.
-
Romanus is spot on. Don't get hung up on a word. Call them Type I and Type II laterals, remembering that for the purposes of this discussion, ALL laterals must progress through the following structures: Pennant -> Lateral Formation -> "Lateral". Spyder has said in this thread, we must consider what goes on inside the lateral and to me that means one must answer the questions: Where am I in the sequence of the fractal on which I am trading? Based on my position in the sequence, WMCN? As has been said many, many times before, WMCN refers to what must come next in the 1,2,3 sequence. That's all it means (and that's enough). How did the lateral start? What went on as the lateral progressed? This will be more or less important depending on your level of expertise as a trader. If you know the answers to these questions, you will know the outcome long before it comes to pass and you just wait for the outcome to show itself. There is ZERO prediction involved. We've had a mess o' laterals this AM which illustrate the logic outlined above. This is NOT the only way to say this stuff. Put it in your own words.
-
An earlier post from ehorn on laterals (and some other stuff): The Price / Volume Relationship - Page 10 - Traders Laboratory lj
-
That's a great idea cnms2. IMO, one of the most important providers of context is the position of price in respect of the fractal on which the trader is trading, i.e., where am I in so far as points 1, 2, and 3 are concerned. If you know 'where' you are, then you know what must come next. If you don't know 'where' you are, then your ability to appreciate the correct context of a particular construct/situation will be zero. As we all know, this sort of confusion can be exquisitely frustrating. On the other hand when you 'know' WMCN, the battle while far from being won, is considerably more in your favour. Bottom line, IMO. You MUST know WMCN or forget about context. lj
-
Thank you for your thoughts. You answered my question with sufficiency. The choice of the phrase 'in between' was reached after some consideration and is best viewed as a functional description of what I see. IMO, the basic unit of 'PV currency', if you will, for the traverse trader is the 2 bar tape which is the most simple type of what you call a 'skinny fractal'. There is a large component of context present in what I discussed, though it may either be unapparent or appear to be different from other sorts of context. The basic principles of the PV relationship are adhered to. In passing let it be said that it is very nice indeed to have a pleasant portal which permits a frequently meaningful exchange of ideas about the method. The periodic purveyors of maltransference are voided with logical thought not howling and screaming or worse, magical thinking. Catch you later. lj
-
A question for Spyder (or as always, anyone else who believes they know the answer). If what romanus has discerned is correct (and IMO, it is), that for 5 min ES players, there must be FTT's at points 1, 2, and 3, then is it likewise correct to say that all of the FTT's, at points 1, 2, and 3, must demonstrate a FTT of ALL of the components of 'the tape' associated with each point? What I mean by ALL of the components is this. For the 5 min ES traverse trader, the fastest trading fractal, on the ES 5 min fixed time fractal, is the 2 bar tape. Expert level traders can do the 'intrabar' thingy but the traverse trader should by and large leave that stuff alone, for a later time, if you will. As we all know there are trading fractals (aka 'goats' and such) which lie 'between' the 2 bar tape and the traverse. For the purposes of this discussion, you have simplified matters by gathering all of these non-traverse fractals into a single fractal which is called 'the tape'. Thus when one turns a corner at points 1, 2, and 3, it seems logical that if the trader has correctly mapped the path to the point, then there must be a FTT of the entire tape and if there isn't an FTT of the entire tape then you don't have, as yet, a point 1, 2, or 3. So if you have a FTT of the 2 bar tape but don't have a FTT of one of the 'goats', then you have to wait until you do have a FTT of the 2 bar tape and all of the goats. Is this 'all or none' Boolean kind of thing correct? lj
-
Thanks again Hal. That problem is fixed now. lj