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.
vienna
-
Content Count
190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by vienna
-
Absolutely... "bounced off several supports".... Vienna
-
Today's chart... hth, Vienna
-
Outstanding. TYVM!! Vienna
-
Yes thank you, I am aware of that schematic by JH, that is what I was referring to...my problem is, I can't seem to locate this pattern on most FTT's I look at...take my examples. I can kind of see this (=shift in the number of bars) occurring in one of the 3 examples but not in the 2 others... Best, Vienna
-
Thank you for you contributions, I really appreciate them! You have been around, and I find your comments very good...could you do me a favor? Could you put an arrow on my charts where exactly "this ratio changes from favoring on side to favoring the other side"? (I know about the direction of the sweep ES>YM> Str-Sq>Dom> Tick chart), and I know this stuff is dangerous if you look at it out of context...that is why I selected actual FTT's)...the idea is, if it is visible in realtime, it should be visible in hindsight, right? Same as an FTT, which can be clearly seen on a 5 Min chart after the fact.... "the relative duration of the sticking high and low"- what exactly do you mean by that? I know that during an FTT bar, price kind of hesitates and stalls as it makes an attempt to reach the LTL (Ivo wrote about this), so this effect is something that could be shown only on video, not on a static chart....Are you saying the OTR Chart does the same? JH's instructions on his video seemed to imply that the pattern of the OTR bars showed the shift (so it should be visible in hindsight)... So: do you mean that more OTR Bars get printed on one side than on another, until the shift, or do you mean that individual OTR bars take longer to form (which would make it hard to see in hindsight)...? Thanks for your time! Vienna
-
This is regarding your question regarding yesterday... see attached. Don't let my brilliant hindsight analysis fool you... in realtime, I was stupefied like the proverbial cow in front of the barn door.... Cheerio, Vienna
-
Question re Tick charts: Is there somebody here who really gets the Tick charts? I have been staring at them for weeks now, attempting to see what JH describes in the Video (the pairs shifting "favoring" etc.), and what is described in the threads...and I just can't see it...perhaps I am especially dense in this regard... So, if you do know, please kindly point out to me what I am missing...I included 3 FTT's from yesterday and today...It is clear to me that you can visualize gaussians etc on that chart as well...but what I am looking for is the specific point on the Tick-chart where you see the change in direction.... I can't seem to be able to do that, even in hindsight...:-D many thanks, Vienna
-
Cool stuff...I like the gaussian projections... same amisme...you guys have the gaussians on diff fractals down pat...perhaps I can learn some here...
-
I missed the FTT too in realtime. The ES closed VE "in the Zone" not only on one but on 2 fractals, so I was also waiting for the M1-M2. Instead it did an LTL touch , albeit at a carryover support...pity to miss it, since that was the move to be in......when I debriefed, I saw that there was an FTT in the YM (a few YM bars later, don't have access to charts right now)... keep the charts coming, these are great! best, Vienna
-
Call their tech support..they will fix it for you. I had the same issue and they figured it out. hth, Vienna
-
I fanned it..had an original in there that touched the bar in question, plus the orange when i had to fan. At one point I took out the original and put in the one you are talking about...seemed to fit better. Should have moved the numbers as well...thanks.
-
Thought I post a chart for a change...ES and YM Vienna
-
Now that was an interesting post...do you have any links to the threads where this specific thing is discussed? Thanks! Vienna
-
Anybody here going to the trader's expo in NY, and wants to meet for a drink? PM me. Vienna
-
Silly me...and there I thought that's exactly what I had gone and done..........:
-
Quote: "Originally Posted by saturo » "Is the BO direction ALWAYS knowable as soon as price tells us we have a lat?" Yup, and without exception. Probably why I keep encouraging people to work through the process of Lateral Differentiation. I designed The Lateral Formation Drill (and its follow up) to remind people to learn to differentiate ... 1. Context 2. Order of Events. 3. and then the thing (in this case laterals). HTH. - Spydertrader " End of quote, pge 144. (Italics and underline are mine). So, I took this to mean what it says...However, it seems that we can not even agree on: 1. you can actually anticipate the exit direction of a lat (at least 2 people told me that that they thought that "this is not really what Spyder meant"), 2. the process depends on the differentiation of: a. Context/Order of Events. b. and then the thing (in this case laterals) It seems that either people think that this is not possible, or that it comes from my desire to "overcomplicate things". All I had tried is to differentiate a and b. What I had actually hoped to find here was someone who had actually completed the process that Spyder suggested, and who could therefore perhaps provide some guidance.......?? best, Vienna
-
Please see attached... unless I misunderstood what you intended...
-
OK, and thanks for the suggestion! Perhaps there was a misunderstanding re my schematic: It was not intended to show "lateral-exit-direction study based on "cases" inside Lateral Formations". It was intended to show where you would expect strength to occur based on the location of the Lat (which seems to be the approach you recommend as well). Perhaps "cases" was the wrong word, since one immediately connects it to the tape cases. Call them scenarios. One spends a lot of time on these forums clarifying semantic issues it seems.... So, I was trying to break the problem into 2 levels: 1. The Context/ Order of things 2. The Thing itself Context (1.) tells you which direction the lat is likely to break to, the Thing (2) should reinforce that, by showing strength in the anticipated direction. (If everything were only a question of context, why did Spyder spend so much time to have people differentiate "the thing", such as the difference between Sym lats, Sym Lats with boundary etc. etc.?) Having said that, the question of how you differentiate "the thing itself" is a separate Subject. I had posted some graphics before which tried to approach this. In the end, ot might very well be solved by looking at the completion of a fast fractal within the lat, as you suggest. Also, cnms told me that he felt you could annotate just ignoring the lats...which seems like a possible approach as well. I am still working from the assumption that what Spyder says in the thread-that you can know clearly and binary how any lat will exit, not perhaps, maybe etc.- is meant literally. hth, Vienna
-
Here is one more schematic I did... the blue bar denotes where I would expect strength to occur within the Lat ("the thing"), either by boundary, inc volume or whatever (the 40 or so cases prev. mentioned)... is just a draft (for example, I am not sure about case "e" etc... Comments appreciated... LATS LONG.pdf LATS SHORT.pdf
-
Yes I interpret it the same way...my point is that is not what it says Is no big deal, the intent seems clear.
-
Of course, the blue line. But the drawing says the revised pt 3 has to be above the bookmark...
-
I have never fully understood why the revised point 3 of the old up channel would have to be in the cyan area ? Please see attached... why can't it be in the grey area?? best, Vienna
-
My limited understanding is that if WMCN does not come, it means the opposite (what ivo called thinking upside down). Meaning: If you think that the trend has changed (BO of the RTL), but then what you assume to be the New Dom does NOT complete, it means the trend has NOT changed, the new leg is still Nondom and the market has probably turned into a rolling/grinding up market, where countertrend trades will fail. hth, Vienna
-
-
I am not saying this in any way to be critical!,,,,,but it points out a significant weakness of any forum context: words can be misunderstood and filtered. The blue note on my chart "nondoms do not complete" did not refer to laterals, but to the fact that-in "rolling" marlets (markets that keep pushing out the RTL, often on decreasing volume), nondom legs often do not complete. In fact, this is a way to recognize that you have entered a a "rolling" environment... why is it important to recognize this context? Because your shorts become countertrend trades, the market keeps breaking the RTL but then going up... you see the breakout, wait for the pt 3, and the trade fails....etc.... hth, Vienna