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.
saturo
-
Content Count
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by saturo
-
Innersky - thank you for posting this but could you re-write your statement and substitute your phrase "the difference" with the phrase "the difference between ______ and ______" filling in the blanks with very specific language. I *think* I know what you mean.. but we all know what happens when you think you know
-
You are looking at the wrong chart. The questions about 10:10, 10:15, 10:40.. refer to this chart: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/24592d1305539570-price-volume-relationship-moreoverlap.jpg
-
I will study this. An observation about the overlap behavior... it dictates the valid placement of the slower fractal X2X trough. Pretty cool.
-
I did recognize the 10:00 bar as the pt2 (volume pt2 not geometric). Hmmm... that bar ends a 2B tape and begins a 2R tape. How is it not IBGS? I know 10:10 is important because it BO's the RTL of the FF traverse... so we advance to 2R in the volume sequence.. but that's just basic stuff. I think it's also important because it represents a slightly higher volume peak than the last 2B. We know that when we get to 2Y 2X in the volume sequence we are entering the overlap zone. This higher volume peak tips us off that "bearishness" might be the stronger force. 10:15 - If I follow my hypothesis from above - the volume on 10:15 bar would serve as confirmation that the high volume at 10:10 was not just numbskulls trading an obvious TL crossover. 10:40 - it shows rising red volume but it is NOT a BO bar... this suggests a down context. The 10:50 has a high volatility to volume ratio... meaning it didn't take much volume push to move the price. The 10:40 bar showed how hard the buyers had to push to just get the closing price back to the open price. I did catch that on your chart - and I've noted that on Spyder's charts as well... but I never really fully understood the geometric logic. I know that the only way for price to go down in an up trend is for volume to fall. From that perspective it makes sense to me... but the geometric aspects do not. If the falling black gaussian line represents an uptrend pt1 is immediately "taken out" which invalidates the up trend. How to reconcile the geometry? Thank you for calling this to my attention. A question about the 10:40 and 10:50 bars - am I correct to assume that the information carried there is confirmation of a trade that would have been entered at the close of 10:30? Also ...the 10:10 and 10:15 would serve as anticipation for that same 10:30 trade? vielen dank!
-
Looking more and more familiar How does my logic look?
-
OK .. let's see if I can nail this... The green thing "to the left" is a FF traverse. Why is it not a traverse of the trading fractal? The VE of the dashed overlap construct (not sure what to call that yet) prolongs the creation of the B2B portion of the trading fractal traverse. Non-dom movement after the VE belongs to the B2B. Next we see 2 tapes and an OB. Tape 1 - is in the non-dominant direction and has lower overall volume. It contains a rising red bar. Tape 2 - is in the dominant direction but has overall lower volume compared to tape 1. I think the most important thing here is that this is an ATTEMPT at a return to dominance at the traverse level but it is NOT a return to dominance. The spike bar represented an acceleration of the tape. There was enough volume to BO of the prior tape but there was not enough volume to overtake the rising red of the prior tape. The OB shows rising red but its overall volume is lower than tape 2. After the failure to return to dominance this is all the "bearishness" the market could provide. At this point I'm not sure what "allows" us to draw in the green FF traverse? ... although I do recognize that we have a situation where this faster fractal thing begins and the slower fractal thing ends "inside" of it (the snake eating itself). I also recognize this as the same situation as 15:30 - 17:00 from the same chart but in miniature. However this time we don't get the VE. The volume sequence of the final tape ends overlapping with the R2R of the next traverse, no? Thank you so much for your feedback :thumbs up:
-
I am going to make an attempt to walk through the 9:45 to 10:05 bars. I asked if it was important to draw in these overlap traverses... this example illustrates why it is important. 9:45 is bar 1. I'm calling skinny-lined things tapes. Bar 1 - Down tape has formed breaking out of an up traverse. Dominant red makes its first appearance. Point 2 of unannotated down traverse. Bar 2 - Falling black heading to RTL of tape. Bar 3 - Rising black on tape BO. Point 3 of the down traverse is established. Bar 4 - Falling volume "walk out" of accelerated tape RTL. Bar 5 - OB shows dominant red. Original RTL of 2-3 tape is broken. Volume sequence complete for down traverse. Bar 5 shows rising red but the overall volume is lower than the prior black tape. We suspect overlap on one fractal higher than tape. (as an aside - it looks like there is some micro-overlap happening on bars 3-4-5) In this case the overlap traverse (green lined thing) shows an FTT two bars later. So if you did not annotate the overlap traverse you would potentially miss the FTT.
-
:doh: I thought you were trying to get me to see something RE: FTTs. I see now that I was wrong. OK.. I believe you are trying to get me to see something about overlap. I DO see how this applies to my original Spyder snippet and related questions. It also looks like this is "detailed anatomy of a new pt1" I believe the critical concept is that no matter if volume is rising or falling over the course of a container... that volume will results in an absolute volume level for that container. This absolute volume is considered in the context of the parent container. So.. going back to this http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/24586d1305344596-price-volume-relationship-bar_by_bar.jpg Bars 2 & 3 say "dominant black" Bar 4 says "dominant red" AND because it is a higher volume peak than bars 2&3 "dominant red on the next slower fractal" Therefore bar 4 is the key that the blue pt3 has not yet come... and in the light of bar 4 the dominant volume on bars 2 & 3 now say "overlap area." Hopefully I am on the right trail? I'm not done studying your post yet...... and many thanks for taking the time to think through and post a response!
-
See attached. I drew in a faster fractal L to R "thing" (thinner lines) Note how it all happens "under" gucci's falling red Gaussian. Edit: what you have as falling red in your circle should be R2R - falling red to falling black on the same fractal is not a valid Gaussian annotation.
-
Thanks Ezzy for your reply... you are trying to help me and I appreciate it! As is often the case with this method the words can get in the way... soo I'm going to try a slightly different approach. In my attachment I've numbered some bars. The market has provided B2B 2R on the "THICK" fractal. We KNOW and can EXPECT that it will give us 2B on the THICK fractal... with 100% certainty. On which bar # do you KNOW that as the market is forming the 2B it is articulating B2B on the MEDIUM fractal (1st sub-fractal) and why?
-
Very interesting chart! Thanks for posting. I understand the slower fractal orange and blue objects. I understand the faster fractal pink object. I do NOT understand the green object (highlighted on attachment) Point 3 of the slower fractal orange thing overlaps with Point 2 of the faster fractal green thing... I thought this was "invalid" ... it's like the slower fractal thing is ending inside the faster fractal thing before the faster fractal thing completes. It's like a snake eating itself Is there a good reason to even bother annotating the green thing? .. or is it essential to seeing where we are in the sequence of things.
-
So... the quote is in reference to the 2X portion of X2X 2Y 2X... see attached attempts to apply the logic to your posted chart. Have I applied the logic correctly? I do not understand what the highlighted phrase refers to... what are the "three iterative refinements" ? ...maybe the 3 levels of Gaussians and corresponding levels in price?
-
I use the standard PV bar coloring, PRV and pace... that's it. I'm a software guy so my "enhancements" are purely code style issues. Is there a need for an automated pace script for NT? I didn't find one but I also didn't look very hard (took about 10 minutes in between forming bars)
-
I pieced together most of it from scripts others have contributed... I didn't mind redoing some stuff because the original code was not written to my liking and I wanted to get my hands dirty with ninja script.
-
Anyone here have a degapping script for Ninja Trader they'd like to share?
-
Comments much appreciated EZ... OK - yes this statement gets at the heart of the matter... advice taken. The talk about rules was slipping into semantics... so I'll be more careful with word choice. So let's get back to square 1. We agree that we can draw a thick line in. cnms2 suggested that pace tells us to expect a sub-fractal. I postulated that bar-by-bar analysis says that the first tape didn't actually have a dominant black in it so it could not constitute FTT. How would you personally handle that decision point? ..what are your tells from the market?
-
IMO PV trading is 100% rules based... it's just that the rules can seem complex because they employ deductive logic. Also the rules are extremely context sensitive and I believe this is the point you are trying to make. So a rule about rules Rules will get you in trouble if you are not mindful of the context. About the snippet you referred to... IMO there was nothing wrong with Breakeven's application of rules in principle. The problem was that his rule for lats is too simplistic... there was no lat in the B2B (Ezzy I believe this drives home the point you and gucci were trying to make - mindless application of rules can get you in trouble). By "this case" are you referring to the 5 bar sequence I highlighted in earlier posts along with the question of why we can't put a thick gaussian over it? Both of these are pretty easy to trivially reject because of the word requirement. So - you can't be telling me that pace is useless as a BINARY/DIGITAL/Yes/No operator!? What I was getting at in my original rule may have been too obfuscated. Let me rephrase it: ON THAT DAY (i.e. for the given context) a trading fractal B2B formed on extraordinary pace (highest level) and exhibited 1 level of observable sub-containers. THEREFORE unless there is a dramatic shift up in pace to extra-extraordinary we KNOW that the 2R and 2B portions on the trading fractal will AT LEAST show 1 level of observable sub-containers.
-
OK - I think we all agree that pace regulates how much or how little faster fractal "stuff" one sees during the day. How would you phrase a rule regarding pace and visible/not visible sub-fractals? No "tends to" No "looks like" - I mean an ALWAYS rule.
-
Attached are hindsight annotations for 2 traverses from today's ES. 3 levels of price and volume gaussians are annotated. Hopefully the color coding is obvious (all of the fastest fractal things are gray on price). The TLs for the carryover short have been degapped. I don't have my pace lines in place because I recently switched to ninjatrader and I still need to code 'em up. Please critique.
-
Yes. To re-state as a rule: as pace decreases the likelihood of seeing faster fractals increases... and as pace increases the likelihood of seeing faster fractals decreases. I don't like "looked like" I like IS. So ...is this the logic: On the day of our example a B2B container formed on our trading fractal at the highest pace levels. This B2B had clearly articulated sub-containers (faster fractal movement). Therefore we can assume that for THAT DAY containers forming on our trading fractal at all pace levels will result in faster fractal movement being articulated. (Sorry I tried to make it as concise as possible... best I could do).
-
Understood. So is your rule: IF 1-2 AND 2-3 are built in the same manner THEN 3 - end will also be built in that manner OR Given 1-2 being built in a certain manner THEN 2-3 AND 3- will be built in the same manner as 1-2 OR some other variant
-
I believe you mean container from 1 & 2 and container from pt3 to ftt, no? This rule is a tough one for me... I've tried using it but I never got to where I trusted it. Is this a hard or soft rule for you? (on a scale of 1 to 10). I meant no disrespect to the old jokari matrix OK... I am constantly on the lookout for basic premises that I've gotten wrong. Looks like I have this one correct. As you point out ...the difficulty is in the simultaneously part. Your annotations and gucci's post jogged my brain a bit and I have a possible (additional) reason to HOLD. In my attachment there are 3 circles Circle 1 - rising black volume - rising price ... BUT it breaks the orange TL and closes back inside.. don't consider it dominant yet because it's a (F)BO bar. Circle 2 - rising volume - rising price ... BUT it breaks the orange and pink TLs and closes outside... don't consider it dominant yet because it's a BO bar. Circle 3 - rising volume - prices makes a slightly higher high but the close is on the low of a fairly volatile bar... this is NOT dominant black In all three cases there is no dominant black to hang an FTT on. Is this good analysis?
-
Hmmm... what is the 3rd case? - BO of a formation - BO of prior RTL - ?
-
See attached. Why should I not be short on the last bar of the chart if I am trading the thick level gaussians on bar close? In my hypothetical scenario I've held through pt3. So in your view is "volume leads price" is just shorthand for the content of the old "jokari matrix" ? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2902253 About prediction vs. anticipation... in my view another way to look at prediction is that you make a decision based on insufficient data in the monitoring step or faulty logic in the analysis step of MADA. So let's say a person is terrible at monitoring... by definition every decision will be a prediction. As an aside - I think I'm pretty good at monitoring... faulty/incomplete logic is my problem :doh: Understood. I've noticed that about this stuff -- the foundation is the same but everyone has their own flavor.
-
......,.........................................