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.
frenchfry
-
Content Count
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by frenchfry
-
My understanding... 1. We need a prior volume peak (pt1) then a volume through followed by increasing volume (same color) and another volume peak. 2. The first place (in the volume pane) that indicated that price is potentially moving from a pt 1 to a pt 2 was bar 5. 3. Yes, until bar 4 we had to assume (based on what I showed on the chart) that those 4 bars are a non dominant tape of a traverse(?). 4. Bar 7 and 8 could be seen as a non dominant container within that container but price still stayed in the original tape which started with two bars. We are still in the same container and on the same fractal at least until bar 9. 5. In general a move finishes with an ftt followed by a breakout of that container. 6. Based on the bars that I showed we think that bar 9 could potentially be the ftt of that container. 7. We have to wait for the next bar to break the current RTL. Bar 9 should also be a volume peak. Now feel free to hit me...
-
Good hint. Thank you. I labeled my alternative "2" incorrectly. Nr. 2 should be from the last peak a 2R followed by 2B. Looking at volume all bars are black. By not applying the ten cases at bars 7 to 9 one could be tempted to draw another B2B. But now it "looks like" we have a complete volume sequence until bar 9. B2B2R2B. WMCN? The green bookmark that cnms placed indicates that we think bar nine is the ftt of that container.
-
now we start to dig rabbit holes. depending on beliefs, rules or knowledge there seem to be at least three different ways to draw the gaussian lines. What do we know? 1. Volume indicated that we move(d) from pt 1 to pt 2 of "something". WMCN is an FTT of the "thing" we are currently in and then we need a similar "thing" which moves from pt 2 to pt 3. Correct? 2. This last bar is an IBGS. Is this important to our "thing"? Important to drawing the gaussian lines? 3. Can the last bar be our ftt? Why yes? Why not? P.S. Let me know if I'm wasting my (your) time or bore you to death.
-
Is this "thing" coming to an end or did we jump? 1. Looking at volume we made a textbook B2B move. WMCN? 2. Looking at price did we already have pt 1, 2 and 3? 3. Is this now our ftt?
-
a few bars later... 1. Are we still in the same "thing"? Why? 2. Price continued higher and volume gives us a clue (or maybe not). Before it seemed like we had pt 1, 2 and 3 of that "thing" clearly identified (and maybe we did). Looking at volume now it seems to indicate that this thing is going from pt 1 of "something" to pt 2 of "something". 3. WMCN?
-
One bar later... what do we know? 1. Is this still the same thing (tape, FF, bbt, etc.) that we had before? 2. Even though price seems to support pt 1, 2 and 3 the same doesn't seem to be visible in volume. 3. Maybe this bar is the ftt of that thing? Why? Why not? 4. WMCN? Why?
-
Thank you Breakeven for sharing your questions and thanks to SK0, Ezzy and cnms for your feedback! I thought there were some really "good"/helpful replies and everything sounded logical in my head and made sense. But let's see if I (we) can identify everything on real charts... It starts with two bars. What do we know? 1. It is a translation black. 2. We seem to be able to draw a _______ (tape?, bbt?, FF?, goat?, sheep?, ...) 3. The second bar didn't reach the LTL. Maybe it is a ftt of that "thing"? 4. Pace is high. 5. Volume is decreasing black. Indicating...(?)... it is a non dominant move of something bigger/slower (?) 6. Even though I can put pt1, 2 and 3 in the price pane volume doesn't seem to support this. What does this tell us? 7. Do we know WMCN? 8. ....?
-
Hi Cory, just to be sure we mean the same with tf (time frame)... what I meant was that if you look at that chart example, you see a 5 min chart with a few "containers" (I mean the smallest that Gucci drew). Looking at the corresponding volume peaks an throughs the "complete" sequence (i.e.B2B2R2B) is nearly never completely visible on that (container)level. However if I would go down in the "time frame" and open a 1 min or 2 min chart then looking at the same containers you would probably see the complete volume sequence for that container. Did you mean the same? Thanks.
-
Thank you to: pr0crast, cnms, cory, patrader and emac for sharing your point of view! cnms, looking at your gaussians I'm sure in realtime I would have drawn them differently. The reason is surely a gap in my knowledge and because I only see "chaos" in the volume pane. When I put price into containers then volume is making peaks and throughs. However the sequence of B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R is not visible for all containers. I can for example see in one container a B2B followed by another container which shows R2R. So the art seems to be to see what is not there (because it is only visible in smaller time frames?) and/or sometimes ignore what you see and simply follow how price moves inside your current container(s) and nests? Enclose you can see what I would have drawn and above what I mean by a container can have incomplete volume sequences.
-
Looking at this, how would you have known that any bar after bar 68 would/could NOT be the BO of the thick red down container? Or maybe it was? The answers are somewhere within: a) Order of events b) Peaks and throughs c) Lateral d) Fractal nesting of containers e) Gaussians In THIS example I was "confident" that we would end up the way it is right now. However trading it with real money I would probably had been whipsawed. By now maybe some of you already start to see how they would know that they know what must come next. I hope to join you soon. Good luck.
-
A few bars later we have two times the same situation and are now at the third possible FBOs. Any clues if this will end up the same way (or different) like the other three times? Is this situation any different? P.S. While I ask, I also try to find answers on the chart myself.
-
Two replys... 1. Once I see them on YOUR charts I will add them, too. Just kidding... the correct answer is: 2. Once I know how to IDENTIFY them I will add them. But there is probably one(?) of the clues!?
-
Just in case somebody thinks I know something or wants to be a "wise ass" and show that I don't know anything... I'm clueless!!! :o
-
Now it is clear. But would you have seen it in real time? What were the clues?
-
This looks better!? Any clues?
-
Well... could be an FBO!?
-
What hints do you see now?
-
FBO or not... which "signs" would tell us that we probably have an FBO? What do you see? Are there any hints of?
-
Hi Martinigue, I understand your point of view that you would like to get a positive confirmation before you invest time and energy into something which at the end might turn out to be useless. Me myself I have seen several examples in different places were some people "proofed" that they are profitable using this method. BUT... for every one of them there is probably 50 others (including) me who are either not successful, clueless or both. So at the end what do you do? Three (or more) people making "shit loads" of money and thousand others trying this method lose their ass. What do you decide? Invest time and energy or stay away? You said it yourself: "...something more reasonable...". This means one or two things already jumped in your eyes which tell your brain: "I should have a closer look." Have a closer look at those things. There is maybe more? Take what works for you and then either continue your investigation or try the next method. I say all this because I suppose that you are already adult and out of school and that you don't need anybody anymore (mom, dad, teacher, boss, etc.) to tell you that something is good or not and that you should follow it or not. Good luck!
-
You mean they don't follow "Peaks" and "Throughs"?
-
Trader1109, do you mind telling a little bit more about what your thought process is behind your dashed gaussian lines? There are two black volume bars but with those you are able to draw four dashed gaussian lines. How did you do this? Thanks.
-
Hello cnms2 and NYCMB, thank you far taking some of your time and your efforts! And of course thanks to TIKI but at the moment I need a break from hammering myself with laterals. :-) cnms2 and NYCMB, your channels/containers seem to be identical. However with your annotation cnms2 I'm not too sure what you are trying to tell me. Are you saying those gaussians below are correct? If so here is what blocks me: In my world b2b2r mean point 1 to point two to point 3. Which means I have a container with three points. But at the moment I don't see a container which belongs to those gaussians. I see you try to show me to which "segment" the 2r part belongs but then point two is in the wrong place? This is maybe where NYCMB comes into play with what he calls "Real p2". Real point 2? What's that? Is my first reaction. :-) If I draw a channel (or should I say container), then at the beginning I define where my point 1, 2 and 3 are. Everything that follows thereafter either must be an FTT... well... now I have to think... or a VE with a new point two(?). But the bar which you marked with 47 to me looks more like an FTT (and cnms2 seems to confirm it) of your dotted green container not a VE with a new point two. But at the end I could also be wrong.
-
Can you please clarify what "PFC", "m1" and "m2" mean? Thanks.
-
There is maybe no contradiction but probably more a knowledge gap on my side. I look at your chart and I see your blue channel. I see where you probably put your points 1, 2 and 3. Then I look at the the gaussians (the thicker ones) below. There I see b2b = point one to point two. The 2b part of this b2b is not where I see point two (which of course can be wrong). Then it goes 2r which should be point 3 of that channel. But it seems that point 3 comes later. I hope this description helps. Greetings.
-
Hi romanus, as a beginner may I ask you about this in your chart... "...the gaussian lines should ALWAYS match the trendlines..." (or maybe it was the other way around.). How does this workout in your chart? Thanks.