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.
romanus
-
Content Count
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by romanus
-
You are correct, the presupposition was created by me in the process of attempting to understand the intended meaning. I don't disagree with the approach. Personally, I keep running into the same problem, the missed component of monitoring, that prevents me from knowing what comes next, - and my attempted humor in the quoted post was meant as " a reference only" to my personal state of being "stuck" in the particular place of my inquiry. I have been fortunate to be reminded by you on numerous occasions that certain things repeatedly exist on charts irrespective of the observer's ability or inability to notice them. Keep in mind, it took me quite some time to tell the difference between those containers that have overlapping point's two and those that don't.:rofl: So, the group of "very few", that you are referring to, includes at least one more member for sure (+1), that is myself. P.S. Trying to define those "things", that one sees, in terms that don't allow for contradiction is a very hard and demanding task. And it may be appreciated by more people than you think.
-
I believe you are absolutely correct. The quoted definitions presuppose that an observer is able to define what "fractal" IS in some way that is consistent across all contexts. That way one doesn't have to worry about defining what the "context" IS. Unfortunately, that knowledge eludes me and I am pretty much where Charles Kittel was when he wrote in the "Introduction to Solid State Physics": "We have not succeeded in finding or constructing a definition which starts out "A Bravais lattice is...": the sources we have looked at say "That was a Bravaise lattice."
-
I found these and I think they may qualify as a "rigorous definition";):
-
I realize that my question is somewhat off topic, but I am posting in the hope that somebody could point me in the right direction, either here in the thread or by PM, if they wish to remain anonymous. One of the examples of the problem that I am unable to resolve in the present state of my observational skills and sensory acuity is represented in the attached chart: by 11:30 on 1/22 it appears that the container is formed that moved the price from Point 1 to Point 2 of the Traverse. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by what was developed by the end of the day. The subsequent short tape ending at 12:15 on 1/22 appears to have moved the Price to Point 3 of the Traverse and 12:15 to 12:40 long tape seem to have finished the construction of the Traverse. I have been trying to locate the solution that would indicate that annotating in real time as shown in the attached would be a mistake and that the 11:35 to 12:15 tape COULD IN NO WAY represent the r2r (p1 to p2) of the container that moves the price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse and that the 12:20 to 12:40 long tape COULD IN NO WAY represent the retrace in the short container that moves the price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse. In other words, how can one KNOW in real time that 1135-1215 and 1220-1240 tapes represent medium \R and medium /B as opposed to skinny r2r and skinny 2b of the container that one may think is moving the Price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse. Thank you to whoever would be kind enough to point me in the right direction.
-
========================================================= post #1137 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-29.html#post84507
-
Upon further reflection, it seems to me that I was somewhat hasty and logically sloppy in formulating my inquiry, to put it mildly - so I can't really blame you for not understanding the answer you provided. But, what is even more important, it's quite possible that the picture you're looking at is different from mine due to some differences in data providers. Would you be so kind to post the blank, not-annotated charts containing the laterals you referred to in the Follow-up. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.
-
If you'd be so kind to clarify: Does it mean that when 11:00 bar (12/21) closes and the Price has formed the lateral (in the attached), one KNOWS that the price will BO that specific lateral in the upward direction and that there's no possibility that the Price may exit that specific lateral downward to finish the non-dominant sequence?
-
If you attempt to hallucinate things in the same fashion as I do - be prepared for some big disappointments. As of now, what was expected to be a skinny p2 to p3 of the traverse, has broken the original tape trendline and started the climb towards the point two of the up traverse - which means the 1255 yesterday was point 2 of the down traverse which is extremely troubling since it is inside the lateral that doesn't look any different from any other lateral. The only thing that seems to hold true universally for all contexts - is that nothing is what it seems.
-
Me neither. Consider the possibility that in THIS particular case they don't exist. Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the image is different from the meaning that this image was intended to convey and that the qualifiers highlighted in red represent something you have assumed. My assumption is different and if you replace the 'each' qualifier with 'some', and the 'should' qualifier with 'might', you might arrive at the alternative point of view. One school of thought is that the gaussians match the trendlines and not the actual volume bars.
-
As much as I hate to alter my view yet again, this whole down thing is beginning to feel like medium R2R. Based on that subjective measure coupled with the possibility that p2 of monday's down traverse might have occured during the first 15 minutes of the day, the possibility that yesterday was an up traverse beginning to look very promising,
-
To paraphrase the infamous MC commercial: incorrectly identifying Point Two of the Traverse: 9.9 on The '1-10 Pain Scale' subsequently assuming that the sequence which ended on the 1st bar was a Traverse: 5.9 on The '1-10 Pain Scale' seeing the Price cross the 'CP4 green line of no return' by one tick before dropping 10 pts: PRICELESS :rofl:
-
Monday, October 26, 2009.
-
I end the laterals when the price exits or /and certain types of OB & IBGS. I start them after pennants or EH.
-
Apologies for the confusion. I just realized that 1435 is inside the previous traverse - which would make it irrelevant whether or not there was a lateral at 1420. All that of course is based on the assumption that there was in fact a previous traverse (which means that the annotations in the attached have to be corrected to reflect that). The assumption that there was a previous traverse is unfortunately not based on facts but rather my inability to hallucinate the alternative annotations.:rofl:
-
While attempting to learn from the market, I operate under the assumption that the lateral that moves the price from p2 to p3 is different from the lateral that moves the price from p3 to the end of the sequence. Calling one 'Dominant' and the other 'Non-dominant' seems like a convenient way to label different scenarios. Personally, I attempt to differentiate them on the basis of where in the sequence the lateral begins. In other words, I seem to hallucinate the differences between arriving at p3 and then beginning to move laterally towards the end of the (tape, traverse) sequence vs. arriving at p2 and then beginning to move laterally towards p3.
-
It would have been a 'Dominant Lateral' which is created by price moving from p2 to p3 of something.1420 bar can't be a Point 2 of the traverse which begins at 1400 for reasons previously discussed. And If 14:20 was a lateral then 1435 would have been a part of that lateral and not a Point 2 of the Traverse. And 1605 would not have been a Point 2 of the accelerated traverse, but instead of the faster fractal tape. And 1005 (10/22) would not have been the end of the Traverse sequence but instead of the faster fractal tape. Of course, this is just my opinion, meaning that I have developed a tendency to hallucinate things in a certain way, which may or may not be the correct way.
-
I can't really find any reasons to disagree that such possibility exists. Should you choose to elaborate more in-depth, you will find that I will be extremely appreciative and very careful not to dismiss any facts. Instead of ignoring the laterals I am attempting to learn what the market is communicating through them in order to find the solution that works across all contexts.:shrug: It seems to me that the existence or non-existence of the lateral beginning with 14:20 bar (10/21) changes the context.
-
Thanks, there's got to be something else that would suggest that 14:35 was a Point 2 of the Traverse. I just can't see it yet.
-
Just wondering if anybody else had 14:30 bar yesterday (10/21) completely inside the 14:20 SYM in Real Time data stream. Mine did and apparently, upon refresh I no longer had a lateral beginning with 14:20 SYM which totally changed the context. TIA P.S. Ehorn's chart shows a traverse while mine and rs5's only a tape. Obviously it was a Traverse.
-
The skinny teal in the attached is not a traverse, medium blue (numbered) - is. Unless I messed up the laterals mid-day, the skinny red down tape at the end of the day should grow into traverse.
-
I believe the NLP refers to this phenomena as 'Time Distortion'
-
With deepest respect and utmost friendliness, but I can't help not noticing how remarkably persistent you are in continually denying yourself all available data from the market. May I recommend a review of Spydertrader's posts here and elsewhere that specifically mention the word 'Gap'?
-
Tuesday, September 15, 2009.
-
It seems to me that this statement doesn't appear to accurately cover all types of contexts. E.g. 2nd blue up traverse - 11/25/08, last pink down traverse - 02/03/09.