romanus

It appears that I've been attempting to kick in an open door -- and all that's required is a slight shift in paradigm. Thank you for pointing that out. The process is very much similar to a journey through a dark unexplored mansion. One enters the first room and it's completely dark. One stumbles around bumping into the furniture, but eventually one learns where each piece of the furniture is. Finally, after a while one finds the light switch, turns it on, and suddenly it's all illuminated. One can see exactly where you were. Then one moves into the next room and spends another few months in the dark. Unfortunately, each of the breakthroughs couldn't exist without many months stumbling in the dark that proceed them. Thank you for your understanding and continuous feedback.

If you’d be so kind to clarify something for me, please. When does the market provides sufficient information to determine that "The Blue Thing" does not belong on the chart. (A) by the time the lateral formation is created – 11:00 bar eob , (B) by the time the completed b2b2r2b sequence is created of certain thickness – 11:10 bar eob, (C/D) by the time two more sequences in opposite direction are created inside what would have been "The Blue Thing" otherwise – 13:20 bar eob. (see attached) How does one arrive at developing a rule set to deal with the specific context of "The Blue Thing"? If I were to define "The Blue Thing" in binary terms, I arrive at the following: “the completed sequence where both Point Two (of the sequence) and an FTT (of the sequence) are inside the lateral formation created by the bar that begins to move the price from p2 to p3 of the faster fractal container which builds Point One to Point Two of the sequence AND all three components of the sequence are built from faster fractal containers, which are in turn built from even fasterer fractal containers”. So far I have not been able to locate the context that meets the definition that I constructed for "The Blue Thing". Is this the case of the incorect definition (e.g. too rigid)? Is there something similar to "The Blue Thing" that YOU have seen in the past on ES, YM, or anything else, that allows YOU to say: “OK, this "Blue Thing" represents the same context and based on how things worked out last time, placing the lateral annotation here would be a mistake.”? And if so, how did YOU determine that "The Blue Thing" represents the same context from which you generalized (derived) the rule set to be applied to "The Blue Thing". I understand that you created this thread to assist in learning themselves how to fish as opposed to teaching how to fish. To me, the water appears to be so muddy that I can’t even see the fish to begin with. As always, any insight you can share on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing this. In the attached, bar 1 on increasing volume fails to reach the LTL and signals peak volume, bar 2 is IBGS on increasing volume and it's close breaks the previous up tape drawn from the final bar on the previous day (black arrow pointing to it). Why would one hold through it and not go short? Thank you.

It doesn't appear to me that comparing the peaks at FTT's and P2's yields any additional data that would make a difference between change and continuation. Thank you for your response. It was determined that in one case the signal for change was and in another wasn't on the same trading 'fractal', and that rigorously constructing containers and gaussian lines based on the volume behavior inside those containers doesn't provide sufficient information to maintain fractal integrity. The context seems to be the missing variable. One would think that the solution would lie in being able to classify various contexts for the purposes of comparing and contrasting. However, that task doesn't seem to easily achievable, if at all. Attached is yet another (third) example of the sequence that looks like the previous two. One can say that the third context is the same as the first one based on how that sequence ended, but it obviously is not the same, based on what came before and after the sequence. In similar fashion, one can say that the third context is the same as the second one based on what came before and after the sequence, but it obviously is not the same, based on how that sequence ended. Therefore, it appears that we are dealing with three distinct contexts. It logically follows that context can not be a binary function.

Thank you for your post. I truly appreciate your insight. However, it seems to me that your line of reasoning here is somewhat circular, much like the Cartesian circle. In other words the missing variable can not be substituted by manipulating the same data set multiplied by unknown factor for what you refer to as 'one above, and one bellow of one's trading fractal'. Today, between 1240 and end of day there were 15 volume troughs, but only a few of them proved to be valid for terminating one set of gaussians and starting a new one. At least four b2b2r's with ensuing tape breaks were built during the same period. But, the market has provided something different. I believe both sequences represent retrace in the down trend.

IMO the clear explanation doesn't seem to belong to the realm of possibility. In mathematics where the truth is tautologically limited to the domains within which from the man-made sets of axioms and definitions it follows: "IF numbers are appropriately defined and IF the operation of addition is appropriately defined; then 2+2=4." I believe that at this point the operations of drawing the trendlines and what the containers bound by those trendlines must contain in terms of volume in order to draw a gaussian line, have been explained unambiguously and on more then multiple occasions. I think it is safe to refer to them as being appropriately defined. Now, in the example posted by me earlier that Spydertrader was so kind to comment on, two objects constructed in the same manner using the 'appropriately' defined rule set for drawing trendlines and gaussians represent two different things. 2+2=4 in one case and 2+2=5 in another. Because of the context. It logically follows that the context must be included in the set of axioms and definitions one needs to view the market correctly in order to arrive at accurate annotations, and in order for the 2+2=4 to be true for all cases. The problem with 'context', beside being an imperfectly defined explanatory notion commonly used to make a sort of conceptual fog, is that as a concept it is in fact a meta-concept in relationship to other concepts one tries to deal with. Just like a meaning of the word would change depending on the context provided by a specific sentence which contains that word. However the axiomatic rule set for building the sentences (syntax, grammar, etc.) is different from the rule set for building the words (phonetics, etc.). One is meta-concept (syntax, grammar, etc.) in relationship to the other (phonetics, etc.). And one can't use phonetics to explain grammar, because it would violate the logical levels and result in 'shoddy epistemology'. What would one use then to explain the context? Certainly not the context itself.:rofl: Logical fallacies are generally easy to spot, the paradoxes however somewhat more difficult. One of the examples is the Grelling-Nelson paradox. It is possible to divide words into two major categories depending on whether or not they describe the category into which they belong. Those that meet this condition are be called "autologic," and those where this is not the case, "heterologic". The paradox is how to classify the word "heterologic." If it were autologic, it would be heterologic, and vice versa, if it were heterologic, it would be autologic. I realize that this is neither helpful, nor encouraging, and I apologize for it.

#1188 If you'd be so kind to comment on when the certainty occurs. In the attached there are two b2b2r2b sequences, one on 2/5, the other on 2/17. They both end in a signal for change, one with Jokari, the other with peaking volume and both with Pennant FBO. However, what came next in one case is totally different from the other. 1. Is this the matter of incorrect annotations? And 'something' indicates that the sequence for the non-dominant component of the slower down trend was completed in one case but not in the other? 2. Is this the matter of incorrectly understanding where sentiment change occurs? Both cases show a change signal visible on 5 min bars, therefore I assume there was an even earlier signal for change on finer tools (DOM, OTR, YM etc.). 2.a. Where precisely the change in sentiment occurs? Before the signal for change? After the signal for change, and if so would the DOM be the earliest one can know that the sentiment has changed? 2.b. And how does the point where one executes fits into and with the signal for change concept? 3. Is this the matter of something else and my looking at the 'dead' (static), end of day charts doesn't allow me see 'it'? Any light you can shed on this subject would be enormously appreciated. I am looking at these two sequences and I can't figure out why they mean different things

Thank you for your post and congratulations on a good month. I have been pursuing my inquiry into the thought process behind the wash trades on and off for quite a long time now in the attempt to minimize the damage from the wrong action following the incorrect monitoring. If you'd be so kind to share some examples where the DU volume caused to exit -- I would tremendously appreciate it. Thank you.

The objects in price pane exhibit self-similarity but lack the fractal dimension and as such can not represent fractals in mathematical sense using the definition (1.Self-similarity + 2. Fractional dimension + 3. Formation by iteration). Correct annotations in volume pane (which are abstracted from both price and volume bars), however, meet all necessary and sufficient conditions of being "fractal" in mathematical sense. Correct annotations in volume pane require an ability to interpret the context which involves among other things the ability to differentiate, and some other abilities (which currently elude me, both in a sense of lacking the ability itself as well as in a sense of being unable to define which specific ability is lacking:rofl:).This is just my own personal theory, which could be wrong. P.S. Everything in italics was meant as an attempt to be humorous.

Thank your for the answer. As it relates to my own personal pursuit of understanding, I stopped looking at YM quite some time ago. However after your recent suggestion to look at YM within the specific context of the lateral discussion for one specific purpose (WWT inside the lateral), I started thinking that perhaps occasionally (as in very rare), the YM could possibly provide me with the answer where I can't seem to find the answer on ES itself. An example of what I mean is the ES sequence in the attached. Even after the market built the sequence in an opposite direction, I am still unable to determine the correct annotations (A or B in the attached). After looking at YM, in my own personally subjective opinion, the scenario A on ES seems to be highly unlikely. The above was a long background for the actual question that I wanted clarify -- would I be correct in stating that points 1, 2 and 3 on ES correspond to those same points on YM building the same sequence on 2 min bars? Thank you for any light that you can shed on the subject.

I got a question for those who are using YM for their MADA. Is it possible for YM to go from P2 to P3 of an up container, while the ES is going from P3 to the FTT of the down container, and visa versa.? E.g., today's 1400 on the ES was inside the lateral (it closed outside, but the next bar closed back inside the 1345 lateral) and seemed like P2 of the accel down container. At the same time, YM seemed to complete the down sequence on 1400 bar, which looked like P1 of the new up container.

If somebody could post blank chart for today that doesn't come from zen-fire data feed, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

... and 13:25 inside of the one that you pointed out.

Thank you for this useful post. In the attached, if one were to arrive at the mistaken conclusion that the last OB in the attached (decr red volume, 1515 eob, 1/28/10) was a completion of sequence and signal for change due to erroneous annotations --- would there be any possible way (perhaps using finer tools) to wash out with minimum damage? And if there's a way, any guidance on the subject would be greatly appreciated. The questions is obviously about "specific" context in the attached. Thank you.

I could be mistaken, but I am going to assume that your "operational definition" of Point Two is the location on the price pane where the LTL touches the price bar. And personally, as far as the definitions go in general, confusing the definition with an assumption is what gets me in trouble all the time.