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.
Ezzy
-
Content Count
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Ezzy
-
Current laterals under discussion for you lazy folks . (the clone tool re-appeared)
-
What Ptunic said is correct. For example the last lateral on Wednesday, the one Spydertrader had me look at more closely, has the 4th bar sticking out. That changes it into lateral movement. That is very different from a lateral with all the bars inside. Not all laterals will have bars "test" or bounce off the1st bars boundaries. Each point is a difference.
-
So the hammers are Syms, the saw is the FBP starting laterals. The ball peen getting to the differences from that point. Like the formation drill, first 2 bars to separate them, SYM vs. the FTP and FBP (which share obvious similarities), and the EH. Just a bar to set or test the boundary, regardless of type. I've lost the plot here, (which one was the saw) but yeah, that one is different, not a sym start. I see, the gap adjusted bar went lateral movement, it's not the same. That bar didn't make the clip here - the TN "clone" tool broke so I can't show it properly. Did you say differences? How much time do you have? :o
-
Ok, the 1st green circle doesn't start with a sym pennant as the ones in the drill and follow up drill. The 2nd green and both orange start as syms, - but since it was said some of them are in a different category, that a can only be one factor in this drill. In the first drill the doji either sets or tests the lateral boundary within 3 or 4 bars. In the follow up drill 3rd or 4th bars sets or tests the boundary, sort of making a FTP or FBP looking lateral. The 1st green lateral starts as a FBP with a doji and the 3rd bar set the boundary. So I would say it is different from the drill laterals, as it doesn't start with a Sym, though it does have a doji setting the bottom boundary. 15:35 Lateral on Wednesday, tests the boundary on the 3rd bar, and the 16:05 lateral has the 4th bar (Thursday's open bar gap adjusted) test and penetrate the boundary temporarily and then goes the other way forming a spike bar - not unlike the doji's. They all seem to have different locations in the sequences, so it would seem we're just differentiating the object for this drill? Trying to keep this simple and look at the similarities, but can see dozens of differences that probably aren't significant. Have I already missed the lesson here, or at least, what have I got right? Thanks - EZ
-
Would the laterals in green be the ones similar to the drill? The orange being the others mentioned.
-
Interesting how the volume is dropping on this up leg on the monthly. The daily looks the same way. Hmmm.
-
Still referring to the 12-21 drill day for comparison I assume?
-
Actually it refers to the price gap. You may find it makes quite a difference on your sequences. Regards - EZ
-
Anyone getting in early on Tuesday for the Expo feel free to shoot me a PM. Regards - EZ
-
David, FWIW I have 10:55 as an FTT and starting the new down traverse. Other than that I have a down traverse drawn same as yours,but my gaussians are a bit different due the starting point.
-
For example, generally you have rising peaks in the dominant direction and declining troughs in the non-dom direction. Though you have to take into consideration the typical midday declining volume pattern. But on the ehorns blue traverse you mentioned a pt3 had a slightly higher volume peak than the pt2. A pt3 is typically a volume trough, and I would be looking at the peaks post pt3 to compare to a pt2 peak. Comparing dominant to dominant. This should apply to all fractals. So I would assume you were comparing the lower level fractal peaks at the end of those legs (of ehorn's blue up goat). And using those to suggest the non-dom 2 to 3 originally annotated might have been a dominant leg. So short version, wanted some clarification rather than going on assumption on what you meant, and why. And do you have a differing view or other insights to add on reading the volume peaks and troughs? Regards - EZ
-
FWIW, from my point of view, there was a short term change there. Tape up to then, tape down to 15:40, and up to 10:35 today to finish an up traverse. @ ehorn, can I assume the peaks you were talking about are at 14:25, 14:40 and 14:50? @ cnms2, there hasn't been much discussion here on peak and trough analysis, except for your post noting peaks some time back. What have been your observations regarding them?
-
Check ehorn's gaussians on this section.
-
Guess they don't read their own forums. Maybe you could refer him to this link: https://www.genesisft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=753&start=0 The wish list thread has a few other items as well, tool bar placement and resizing the DOM ladder, etc.
-
A little more food for thought. If you had a valid 2 bar tape, (rare) how could you have four volume bars go dec blk -> inc blk -> dec red -> inc blk? b2b2r2b. So the cycle happens within those 2 bars.
-
It's possible that the tape volume sequence isn't visible on the 5m ES for these particular tapes. See the link below. Yes, for a down traverse a R2R tape, 2B tape, and 2R tape. I don't see where dec red tape goes to a dec black tape. Could you doctor the pic? The link below and series of posts below it may or may not help. As mentioned, sometimes you might not be able to see the full volume gaussian cycles clearly on 5min bars. The 1st clip you posted has tapes, those have everything required for tapes, all on the 5min ES. If you are trying to fit those tapes in with the BBT's, they are two different orientations and might not always mesh. http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-3.html#post71051 Notice on some posted charts on the 1st leg of a B2B there might be lower fractals that come together at the trough and finish on the up leg (2B). But on the 2B up leg, a r2b sub-fractal may or may not show up. The point being each leg may not have the same number of sub-fractals. And on a tape sometimes you have to go YM or maybe tick to see the full volume cycle. Hope that helps.
-
I have the same data as you and rs5, using TN and Genesis data feed. 1093.75 high for both bars.
-
This is all the encouragement anyone needs. Attached is a spreadsheet based on the ES. Plug in the minimum points per day you think you could pull, and starting number of contracts. See how your account grows. It's based on $2K margin per contract. You don't have to kill it to do very well. Even starting with only 1 or 2 points per day. Many believe even that is not possible. ExpAcctGrowth.xls
-
Something we haven’t done a lot of here is comparing and finding out why someone put an annotation in a particular place. That might prove beneficial. Green circles: You used a gap adjustment to start the sequences the prior day. I saw the OB as a sequence completion, FTT, and an opportunity to restart the sequences at bar 1. Either way seems to work in this case. Neither of us saw the last few bars of the prior day as starting a b2b though I could see how someone could view it that way. Blue circles: While 10:35 looks like the real pt2 of the goat(?) where we both annotated the gaussian, I chose to use 9:50 as it’s the max volatility for that channel. I’ve seen people annotate both ways and could only see a difference if we continued up and made a VE. Red circles: I used the low volume bar at the stitch for my gaussian trough just based on volume. There is almost a lower level sequence in there as well but couldn’t work it out (added red lines). Your trough at 11:20 on the IBGS may be more technically correct. Purple circles: I felt the end of the move was at 12:10 and everything in the lateral was on the non dominant side of the Gaussian, even though it appears to be a dominant lateral. There was a change within the lateral. I almost went with 12:25 as the price peak but couldn’t bring myself to end an r2r at a trough. Again, you may be more technically correct here. Any other comments or differing views would be appreciated.
-
10-09-09 ES Chart for today.
-
You know, eventually someone is going to have to let us in on what happened in that cab...:cinema:
-
Just a reminder for those going over the older charts to consider the discussion at the time for context. For example on the 11-25-08 posted by Romanus, faster fractal traverse was still a common term. The orange and olive channels being of that type. Also all the gaussains were not broken out per fractal, only some. The first orange has several within it, but the orange now might be considered only a tape. - EZ
-
Caught that this morning too, my other reasons obviously didn't work out. I'll try to dig up that example for you.
-
I agree with the way you have it annotated, as it looks right. Though for different reasons. The tape acceleration is valid in certain circumstances, but I have a very similar example (to this) where it definitely isn't, so I appreciate this example for comparison purposes. Back to the charts for more review. Will keep in mind your view on the EH's and FBP's as well. Thanks - EZ
-
I have a question on your 5:15 - 15:30 pt2 to 3 retrace of a traverse. Is that because of the non-dom lateral, as this section doesn't have increasing volume?
