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
-
Were you just referring to "hold" with the reference to flaws, or something else?
-
Try 14:45 (or even 14:35) to 8:55 (your chart times) as all decreasing red. End of day volume and opening bar volume needs to be taken into consideration. It can make the gaussians a bit harder to read. - E Z
-
Could be going off base here, but during the Romanus / PointOne discussion I kept coming back to Gucci's comment, as we could get a signal for change that doesn't appear to be an FTT, at least on the 5 min ES. On the point 3 in question, the only way that couldn't be a point 3 is if it is an FTT of something else (say a down traverse for discussions sake) and a new point one of the up thing/traverse. Since my interpretation was there were no annotation errors in the "taping" of this area, there could be some bigger picture or larger fractal lines coming into play. Right track?
-
Thank you for your detailed explanation on IBGS. I have reviewed your old posts and annotated charts which were posted before you started this thread on 07/05/2009. However, my ability of understanding JHM prevents me from choosing the right posts and charts to apply on the current case. Can Bar 24 which breaks a Formation (in this specific case, a SYM Formation; and in general, all types of Pennant Formation) become point 3 and termination of orange trendline (assumed Traverse) without confirmation from the following bar (including neutral bars like Spike and Doji) 0n Increasing Volume? TIA A slightly different way of looking at it, if you had a traverse point 3, then you have to have had a 2 to 3 tape or lateral. Where would that tape start and end.
-
From what I understand we always want to include volume. - EZ
-
So it wasn't necessarily about the snippet (in a vacuum). It was the bigger picture, what came before it should have told us WMCN.
-
Was this in regard to the 7-28-09 ES chart? I don't have the OB's, stitches on mine. But it looks like the laterals and at least one spike referenced are from that day.
-
When we have a VE we almost always have or get an accelerated point 3. But not sure if the reverse applies, always needing the VE, as we could just FTT instead. As I take another look it might be more of an acceleration of the tape which did have a VE, but the left to right movement (lateral tape) may not have everything required for a non-dom tape - so it wouldn't be an accelerated traverse. Not sure just another view to work through.
-
Nice work. I might want to add an accelerated pt3 at 12:40 or so for the traverse but that may be a bit OT for the time being. Looks good to me.
-
Hey Tiki, Nice to have you back with us. Your questions are why I had posted a page ago regarding the above pics, and getting clarification for points 1,2,3 on the 2 bar tape. Assuming the smallest possible traverse you would need at least 6 bars (possibly 5?) to complete a traverse: 2 bar tape up, 2 bar tape down or lateral, 2 bar tape up. For a 2 bar tape the volume acceleration-deceleration-acceleration might be difficult to see over just two 5 minute bars. This is assuming that we need to apply the traverse and channel rules to tapes.
-
So in Neoxx's example with price blocked out and with the gaussians drawn in we should know it was a traverse. On other examples, (of traverses) it might not be so clear. Walking through the other examples was an attempt at differentiation of volume sequences, or reading volume by walking through the other viewpoints. There may be something glaring that's missing (in my analysis of these alternatives) that someone else might see that would help move the process forward. Of course it's always nice to have a standard to compare to. Thanks for clarifying. - EZ
-
Was applying it outside the "boundaries" a reference to the question being only about it being a traverse? Was your answer to Neoxx with or without the gaussians already drawn in, as in that specific example? I walked through the alternatives. Any comments or other things that should have been taken into consideration? Thanks - EZ http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12317&stc=1&d=1248074111
-
Yep, the 'ol separating the fractals issue rears it's ugly head. I see it as in part as advanced taping, where the tape is fanned, and what's within it is sub-tape level, or sub-sub tape depending on how many fractals/cycles are within. Quite removed from the basic 2 or 3 bar tapes we start with. I still have trouble with that; when they grow very large, and reasons for growing. I'm more curious if your reliable informant also confirmed the tape starts at 11:30 instead of 11:00, or if there was a reason to restart there? I would have started it at 11:00 and gone from there.
-
The sequence is B2B, 2R, 2B. Going pt1-pt2, pt2-pt3, pt3-into the trend. That is a completed sequence (though it can keep going longer: B2B, 2R, 2B, 2R, 2B). After the sequence is complete, only then can you go R2R, 2B, 2R. If you see B2B, 2R, 2R then you're most likely mixing the fractals. I know this was directed to Spyder, but since I'm at it: Yes.
-
Thanks, that clears it up.
-
On the Building Annotations, L1 regarding #3 and working through the example there, could you clear something up? On some tapes it isn't clear on which bar the pt2 is. For the 2 bar tape does it matter if price follows a 1 to 2 to 3 movement within the bars, or just use the bar ends and place them where they fall. In the attached clips some of the tapes would have made their pt3 before 2. Thanks, - EZ PS: Sorry for the small pic, couldn't get it to post larger, will have to click it. http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12224&stc=1&d=1247808475
