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.
MomentumMike
-
Content Count
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Thursday, 04/22/10 I thought this day was somewhat difficult. I tried to apply info garnered from yesterday's posts, in particular: That was very beneficial. Thanks cnms2 and all. Comments appreciated.
-
Wednesday, 04/21/10 As always, comments appreciated.
-
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 Generally, I feel good about this chart... getting better at this each day (I think). I don't like how quickly P's 2 and 3 of one container and P1 of the next formed between 10:25 and 10:40. Other than that... ok. rs5, my chart is very similar to yours.
-
Monday, 4/19/10 In real-time, I thought I saw one BO at 13:55 and another at 15:45. Did anybody know that these moves were not BO's as they were occurring? Comments appreciated. (Edit: I've changed my mind about the rules I used to create the black up-channel. I think I should have fanned the pre-existing down-channel.)
-
Spyder, rs5, ptunic and all, Another, more important, fractal level question... I have a carry-over up-container that was originally built many days ago by the same fractal level that revealed four containers on 4/15. I am trying to reconcile this and the existence of the down container with P1 at 11:05 and P3 at 15:05. The down container was built by the same fractal level as the CO up-container, but the down container resides inside of the CO up-container. Is this a real possibility or did I somehow botch the up container? It sure seems legit. This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me. Thanks!
-
rs5 and ptunic, I am working on separating fractal levels. I think I have a tendency to promote Gaussian lines when they should only be visible at lower fractal levels. I have a question regarding a particular annotation that you both made. If you have a moment and don't mind me asking, please see the attached.
-
Thanks, dkm. I have been looking at this - testing the idea on older charts. It looked to me like I was incorrect, but, I was struggling with whether my "baseline" annotations/context invalidated the tests in the first place. I suppose I'm guilty of over-simplifying. Although, one of the simplest rules of all, "one bar does not a formation break", would have prevented that non-dominant container from appearing on my chart. (Note to all: I have no idea if that rule is truly valid or, if it is, when it applies.) Thanks for saving me some time, dkm. I already put in just about every hour of each day. Now, it's time for more coffee, due to the smilie in your reply. I know I'm going to need it.
-
Thanks very much, Spyder. I think I see my error. My non-dominant move leading to P3 in my non-dominant container has a peak volume that exceeds that of my preceding dominant move (in this case, P1 to P2) in the same container. This is not the case for any of the non-dominant moves within my subsequent dominant container. I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.
-
Wednesday, 4/14/10 I may be missing a level of Gaussians between the top two levels. Maybe not. I'm not sure what else to do with them when I see a container (starting today at 10:20) that is traversed many times. Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.
-
Ezzy, thanks very much for your reply. I'm going to work through each bit of info. I believe my current hurdle is in properly identifying fractal levels. It seems like I keep getting into a situation where I build a wide Channel that contains Tapes which build Traverses that eventually end up meandering about the middle of the Channel. Maybe those Traverses should be building another fractal, but I already have a Channel established and no level exists between Traverse and Channel. Maybe my specific thoughts below will clarify my trouble. I understand this (thanks!) in the context of my 3/10 chart, i.e., without any carry-over channel from 3/9. When I annotate my carry-over channel from 3/9, I no longer see thick red as valid. All of thick red's movement is within the carry-over channel (thick black on attached chart). It appears to me that the points of black and red are created by the same, immediate subfractal level (the traverse level). Since red has no pt 2 outside of black, why is red valid? Isn't it just an assemblage of traverses within the black channel? I think I understand the reason for not fanning the 1st med green. However, when I don't fan, it looks to me like the pt's you describe build the next fractal at the same level as the med green, rather than a subfractal within it. How would I know the pink fractal on Chart2 is a subfractal of the green? Nesting... killing me... Ezzy and other gurus, care to give me a nudge toward my "Aha!" moment?
-
I posted a chart on 3/10. Thanks to the feedback of the members on this forum and earlier posts (and an effort over every waking hour of the last week), I believe I have made some serious progress. I posted the "before" and "after" charts. I'm not sure whether I should have ever considered 13:55 (cob) as a BO, but I did. Three bars later, I marked it as an FBO. I'm thinking that I should have discounted the minor increase in non-dominant volume as an effect of breaking out of the bottom of the lat, rather than taking it as a sign of a BO of the traverse. Or, maybe the volume level wasn't high enough for a BO of the traverse. I haven't determined how to (or whether I should) consider absolute volume levels in my analysis. Any guidance, as always, is much appreciated.
-
Thanks for the reply! I consider it an "assistant", as Barney Fife as it may be at this moment. I'm experimenting with 1) taping through lats, where I almost always lose the Gaussian pattern, and 2) pausing taping while in lats and resuming after the lats terminate. On this chart, I didn't tape through lats. Otherwise, I thought the tapes were OK. I'm accelerating on increasing volume and fanning on decreasing volume. If I'm not getting this right, I have a feeling I'm in trouble. I'm not exactly sure. :rofl: My assessment of marking all lats as non-dominant movement: 1) It seems to work when there are no overlapping lats 2) I need to make sure my Guassians reflect the price action when the lat exits 3) I'm considering price action and Guassians while in a lat to be subfractal Great. I'm quite content to work with Coarse Level Tools and take this one logical step at a time.
-
I thought this group of bars was falling red, figuring that the lateral indicated non-dominant movement. I believe I learned this in the Futures Journal. But, based on Spyder's response to my post and Ezzy's response to yours, it seems that I either misunderstood or misapplied what I learned. From my interpretation of Ezzy's response, this appears to be rising black, continuing on until 9:50. Is that correct?[/color] It seems like this bar could have been a retrace, with price continuing lower. I thought increasing volume was a characteristic of IBGS. No? Or maybe you saw it intrabar?
-
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 Today's chart attached. I focused on marking the volume of all lats as non-dominant. Sorry about the dots in the volume pane. I'll try to remember to remove them from now on. What's the general consensus about acting on signals only at the close of a 5-minute bar? It seems like, due to the nature of the market and the ability to trade on various fractal levels, one could find a fractal level where acting on the close of a 5-minute would be acceptable/profitable. If that is the case, I'd like to find out if that acceptable fractal level is the "traverse level", i.e., where I would not be trading RTL or LTR movements within tapes, but the RTL or LTR tapes themselves of the next higher fractal. (Please note that I'm not saying that I would enter and exit only on tape breakouts.) Sorry if this is confusing. It's difficult to explain. Thanks for any advice.
-
For what's it worth.... At 18:40 I see an R2R form at a relatively slower pace. That R2R is followed by a B2B at the same pace, indicating an upward bias. I'm still pondering this.
