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.
cnms2
-
Content Count
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by cnms2
-
Fractals ... Cycles ... Goats. The market signals its intention long time before your best trading point for your targeted time frame. It's up to you to do it right, early or late ...
-
I applied my interpretation of Spydertrader's posts #41 After completing the 'tape drawing' drill, and after one begins to 'merge' the individual 'two bar' tapes into longer trends which continue the current 'tape fractal,' stop annotating 'tapes' within Lateral Formations. Begin to note the significant shift in Pace which develops inside every Lateral Formation. Note as well the changes which develop as Price moves from inside a Lateral Formation to an area where the Lateral Formation ends. and #110 The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw.' In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.
-
... possible tapes and traverses:
-
Two possibilities, using rs5's chart: with and without a 1420 lateral.
-
Building complete 1-BO-2-3- (FTT/VE-2'-3' ...) sequences where each of the legs can also be built of one ore more levels of visible complete sequences, defined by both price and volume, while keeping count of their nesting to stay on the same fractal. I was suggesting that you posted a snippet with your P&V annotations, and your reasoning for starting and ending each lateral, to see what you're seeing. For instance, I see a lateral like in the attached ...
-
The market is quite redundant in signals, and I think that almost any small inaccuracy of the P+V data is taken care of with negligible impact (if any) on the trader's view of the market, and implicitly his P/L. I see that almost every poster has a different view of the lateral formation's definition and scope; sometimes there are such variations on the same chart ... It is quite possible to correctly view the market and stay on the same fractal even when completely ignoring lateral formations' existence, while their inconsistent use will probably be a source of errors. If you wish, post an annotated chart of yesterday's period 1045 (or 1210) to 1520, noting for each lateral you draw or ignore why you did it so.
-
... Think! Do your best! ... ditto Come back to your chart after few days, check it, adjust it, draw conclusions. In the beginning it's harder, you'll err more.
-
In my interpretation, that statement says that the "gaussians must match", and not that the "gaussians must be drawn to match". So when they don't match, maybe the price annotations need to be adjusted, or both. Start from your Friday volume gaussians. Looking just at your volume pane would you draw the same gaussians? If "yes" you're done ... for now, and try another chart. If 'no", or "not exactly", draw gaussians as you see them, on three fractals (or more). Then compare them to your price pane annotations and see if you can change something there to have your gaussians "match the trend lines". In the beginning this will be harder to do, but in time you'll be able to recognize volume formations and trends that will tell you the story sometimes better than the price. If you had a "yes", or even a "no", on Monday come back to Friday's chart and with the benefit of hind sight review your annotations.
-
It seems that some posters draw gaussians (and use the volume pane) only to record their interpretation of the price action (and their view of the L1s, L2s, L3s). If they did the drill of covering the price pane and drawing gaussians exclusively from the volume information, they'd sometimes get a slightly different picture, especially on L3s. The correct picture comes out from the correct interpretation of both P and V.
-
From Spydertrader's post #41: ...After completing the 'tape drawing' drill, and after one begins to 'merge' the individual 'two bar' tapes into longer trends which continue the current 'tape fractal,' stop annotating 'tapes' within Lateral Formations. Begin to note the significant shift in Pace which develops inside every Lateral Formation. Note as well the changes which develop as Price moves from inside a Lateral Formation to an area where the Lateral Formation ends. ...
-
Paraphrasing rs3 (Rod Stewart's 3rd album): Every peak tells a story
-
From Spydertrader's post #233: While certainly, additional trading fractals (beyond skinny, medium and thick) do exist, they reside not 'in between' skinny and medium, but rather, below (or faster than) a skinny line. As a result, we rarely see them. However, when we do see these faster (than skinny line) fractals, they operate in the exact same fashion as all other fractals (skinny, medium and thick) which we see each and every day.
-
NYCMB's recent inquiry to ehorn attracted my attention because he posted that chart validated by Spydertrader. You expressed your doubt too, so I thought to reset the discussion to a calibration point. I have no intention to increase anybody's frustration.
-
Also, check #75 and #77.
-
From Spydertrader's post #177: Whatever something "looks like" in the Price Pane falls under the catagory of unimportant because a tape does not ever look like a traverse (or anything else) when observing the Volume Pane.
-
Actually my suggestion was meant to be taken ad litteram. I know that one of the main factors that prevent most of the pupils of this method from breaking the profitability barrier is that they don't pay enough attention to volume. I avoid giving direct advice, which would be my interpretation of Spydertrader's posts in light of my experience, because I think that for each one of us the best way to crack this method is to start from the source. At two months from the starting of this thread my best advice to those who care to take it is to re-read all, and only, Spydertrader's posts here, paying attention to each word, not skipping but also not adding (inventing) anything. Spydertrader chooses very carefully his words, and only when "you know" you fully understand what he meant, and what he didn't mean. One example that comes to mind: "The market defines a Traverse based on Volume."
-
Check the volume ...
-
In the spirit of this thread: what do you think are the reasons to hold / reverse / exit in each of those cases?
-
There's nothing wrong in drawing it this way. Is there?
-
8/24 1110 bar seems a good channel synchronization point.
-
My L1 gaussians for that area.
-
I've annotated some areas differently.
-
I just see it as the new rtl. Don't care for wedges, but a steeper rtl is easier to break.
-
Duplicated reply. Don't know how to delete it ...