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.
Zan-shin
-
Content Count
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately I am none the wiser. Nowhere can I find a definition of a "faster fractal traverse" or an explanation for the difference between it and a "real traverse". I am still puzzled as to how one can identify and correctly annotate nested fractals.Would you be kind enough to give an explanation here for the benefit of myself and others in a similar situation?
-
Thank you for your reply but I do not understand what you mean by "faster fractal traverse". I do not recall this term being used in this thread. I am trying to get to grips with how to tell what fractal each volume sequence corresponds to, given the 3 fractals as defined at the beginning of the thread. It would seem that if "pace" slows down then I can no longer anticipate greater volume in the 3rd leg of a sequence. So how can I tell if I am looking at the 3rd leg of my sequence or the 2nd leg of a faster sequence that is building my slower leg???
-
Perhaps cnms2 might elaborate.....
-
And also on this chart, annotated by Spydertrader at the NY meeting. The vol in the 2b leg (from 12:15) is lower than the vol on the 2r leg (from 11:05 to 12:15) in the long blue container from 10:40. Any thoughts?
-
That's very helpful thank you. The attached clip, posted within this thread by Spydertrader, seems to be an exception. i.e vol on the 3rd leg (2r) is lower than the vol on the 2nd leg (2b).
-
When comparing volume highlights, do you anticipate the volume highlighted in the 3rd leg of x2x2y2x to be higher than the highlighted area for the 2y leg?
-
Are you suggesting that because the red peaks in the 2R (11:50 to 12:15) are lower than the black peaks in the 2B (11:10 to 45), then the 2R is not on the same fractal as the R2R?
-
P2 cannot possibly be on the 15:55 bar OR the 16:00 bar in the attached chart. The volume pane confirms this.
-
Hmmmm.... When price leaves our container on decreasing volume, some might say that we should fan....... Quote: Price exited the channel on decreasing Volume. Anytime this happens, we anticipate the trend remaining intact, but the channel needs altering. Hence, we fan outward. The market will let us know if we anticipated correctly. - Spydertrader Break on decreasing Volume must fan, but break on increasing Volume can fan. One set of circumstances results in mandatory action. The other results in an optional action. How to distinguish between when to do so and when not to do so results from noting, "Did the trend change, or just the channel?" - Spydertrader If I need to 'fan out' a channel (when price leaves the channel on decreasing volume) I usually fan from my last Point Three. Not only does the decreased slope of the new (fanned) channel visually represent a reduction in market pace, but using the Point Three vs. recycling the Old Point One normally results in fewer fans as time moves forward. Either way works. Choose whichever you feel best allows you to 'see' the market. - Spydertrader End quote. Worth bearing in mind when you consider putting a p2 inside the previous container
-
OK. Put it another way. Gucci's statement was true for the specific example that he used but it is NOT true to suggest that the 2nd dominant leg will always be built by a faster sequence just because the first dominant leg was built by a faster sequence.
-
For clarification, it should be noted that this statement is not reliable. Example attached.
-
Thank you. I tried to explain what I can and cannot see with respect to how all markets operate on a fractal basis. Your answer only confirms that it is pointless posting questions.
-
Spydertrader, It is frequently the case that 3 thin containers make a medium container and 3 medium containers make a thick container, and under these circumstances, all 3 fractals are visible. However, it is often the case that not all of the thin containers are visible in all of the medium containers, and we might occasionally see the sub-thin containers that make the thin containers. As an example, consider that we have created a medium container with 3 visible thin containers, taking us from P1 to P2 of a new thick container. The following medium container that takes us from P2 to P3 of our thick container may NOT reveal the thin containers that built it. If we have assumed that the second medium container had begun with a thin container then we would discover (eventually) that we had jumped fractals because what we assumed to be thin had ACTUALLY been medium as price began its journey from thick P2 to P3. Occasionally we see an x2x made up of a sequence of lower and lower peaks following by a sequence of higher and higher peaks. In these circumstances it is clear that faster sequences are visible. Also, we see situations where the 2y leg contains a sequence of decreasing peaks, and/or the 2x leg is made up of a sequence of increasing peaks. Both reveal that faster sequences are in play. However, we will occasionally get a container that does not show sequences of peaks, but ends up NOT begin thin. Is this a situation where we HAVE to assume our container is thin and rely upon subsequent information to tell us that our “thin” container is in fact medium or can we KNOW for sure what fractal level each volume sequence is starting on? Thank you
-
Something like this perhaps? Because we have no olive rtl bo, the thin gaussian continues, creating only a medium B2B, with the trough of the B2B where the black peaks start to increase.
