xioxxio

You need an FTT of either, not both. Both would be ideal. If you do get an FTT of a container make sure you know which is the correct RTL to cross to stay on your trading fractal. If you are going to speed up something make sure you know where the brakes are. Its like driving a car

You do need an FTT. The whole point is to trade FTT to FTT. If you dont get an FTT on any fractal then it is sub-fractal. There are times when tapes are built inside tapes, traverses are built inside traverses, whatever you call it . They are not on your fractal. It is very easy to wonder off the reservation.

Quote from the late great Jack "Sorry to be so tardy in responding. I'll try to be thorough with my comments. These comments will remove the "sometimes" aspect of what you re sensing and processing. Very good use of terminology. The terminology goes a long ways toward having a consistent logging process. During any time you are using three nested fractals. The middle fractal is the trading fractal. Anytime you are in trades and using MADA and annotating and logging. you deal with the fastest fractal first (FFF was the term used for shorthand). Your comments concern the apparent lack of consistency after ve's. You also comment on WMCN during a ve. This being the case, I will go thorough the order of events on the table and in doing so, I will remove the "sometimes" by drilling down to give you a "tree" that handles all the branches. Let me give you the short answer first. I apologize for past posts that may not have been clear to you. I have difficulty covering all the bases for everyone in any given post. 1. IF you see a VE test it for the zone which is a close on or beyond the original ltl. 2. Examine the next faster fractal pattern and see, if during the bar, the pattern completed. You know you know how to handle a completing pattern on a faster tractal. If there was completion, do the usual regarding the trading fractal which had the VE. That was the short answer. And it is telling you to trade point to point on the trading fractal from now on. You earned the right by your awareness of doing steps 1 and 2 above. Lets work further into the scene of WMCN coming into a VE and what happens after a VE. As usual, volume leads price and this is how "sometimes" gets eliminated. All VE's or ve's occur after point 3. This means volume has been dominant for a while and it (volume) is telling you something about how all three nested fractals are behaving. Look at you log and size up WMCN on each fractal, particularly with regard to volume and the P's and T's on those three fractals. You are looking at arriving at a P or going further towards a P in the next few bars. Get the context by looking at the page number of your log. Look at the bar number of your log. Look at the market PACE and determine the contemporary PACE shift going on. This is just my "tuning" you up a little here and there. Context is where "sometimes" came from for you. Look at the pattern and consider the five volume signals: P, T, P, T, P. Steps 1 and 2 handles the last P only. That is the next faster fractal was "completing". The LTL is where peaks occur or where VE's occur or soon a peak will occur. So increasing volume is a context for coming to an ltl , going through an ltl and completing a faster fractal pattern. 3. If the volume is peaking at less than the max volume from pt 1 to pt 2 and the volume difference going from the minimum trough @ pt 3 then the trading fractal has also completed its pattern concurrently with the nest faster fractal. So now you have context and 3 steps for consideration. We now look at the players and who is whom. Spyder has emphasized interbar gausian shifts and they are named IBGS. Here the intrabar context is examined. As you saw, the zone was examined and you know that you know the prior bar WAS NOT IN THAT ZONE for the first VE occurance. What about when price is operating to make another VE or price is staying in the zone for more than one bar. Look to volume more closely and look at either side of the market: the dominant or the non dominant. You will be surprised, I believe. The "tells" are in how each side is behaving and just who is in the majority and minority. This is tough to deal with at first but soon the intellect takes charge and "sometimes" goes away simply because you are in one or the other branch of a tree. I am taking you there to the branches so you can then, through experience, take the correct branch on each occasion of branching. 4. If the faster fractal did not complete, then you have to deal with a non dominant leg followed by a dominant leg to get to completion. 5. Toss in a bookmark at the extreme of the VE and watch volume and price work. 6. If you have 4. in play then treat the VE as a new point 2 and the FTT of M1 as the new point 3. 7. Your reversal on the extreme of the VE let you go through the IBGS, if any, on the correct side of the market. A IBGS is a good piece in terms of WMCN to complete a nondominant leg. In point to point trading, you trade M1 and M2. In FTT to FTT trading you sit through M1 and M2 to get the two legs of the faster fractal completed. In this point I am asking you to get sharpe on volume and how it leads price. I am also asking you to get sharpe on the relative nature of either non dominant or dominant volume. What you are reading is me going to where you are and opening door after door for you to begin to look through. As you do, you are satisfying a NEED that your mind has notified you that the NEED exists. So several new pieces, for you, have appeared. you mind is calling each piece a "what". all of these "whats" have places to go to in your mind. They are goi9ng to "where" they want to reside. They will make friends with the pieces already there. They will begin to fit into your already orderly mind. All this collection of pieces is forming a spectrum all orderly according to the work the pieces do for you. The spectrum is called "differentiation". You have accomplished a lot. Your mind is asking for more pieces so "sometimes" goes away and more "consistency" results from having a tree of paths that contain all the orders of events that can occur according to the system of MADA, the pattern and the interconnections of the nested fractals. As all these "whats" find "where" the mind will be keeping them, you will notice there is an assembly line going on to build your mind into a differentiated organization. You are, thus, approaching unconscious competence. Coherence, which you have, is a requirement for building the mind. In contrast, betting, prediction and money and risk management, are incoherent and the mind does not get built. All it does instead is the OODA loop of being like a fighter pilot in a death struggle. Congratulations. Trading simply becomes like driving a car when your mind becomes more or less differentiated."

Stepan, you are a machine. How many charts are you annotating in realtime? Thanks for the posts.

Mak is a masters of this method. He spent a lot of time with Jack and Todd in Tuscon. I would definitely put him in the same boat as Spyder.

That is not true, an internal with increasing volume are treated differently to internals with decreasing volume. This whole method is dependent upon volume and to simply ignore volume due to internals being price formations is reckless. In the Vegas conference Todd specifically differentiated between such cases.

Check out post #15 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/candlestick-corner/6180-open-free-discussion-volume.html It all depends on which fractal you want to trade at.

The market is always right, no-one is disputing that. It is the definitions that Todd used changed. I take you never went to the Vegas Conference, arranged in this forum. He clearly discussed BBT's, Tapes and Traverses. BBT's are what you are referring to as tapes. Tapes are full volume cycle containers and Traverses are three tapes. That is the definition on THIS forum. At the end of the day it does not matter what you call it.

Faster fractal traverse down to 15:15. I did not annotate all the sub-fractals but you can clearly see them.

Besides the obvious formations and as stated OOE , they are both non-dom = continuation

The low of the bar is still inside the previous tape, so we have not arrived at p2 yet. The bar also closed back inside the previous bar. I think Sydertrader referred to this as lateral movement.(CCC) Hopefully others will participate. Thanks for leading this discussion

I must be blind. There is an FTT at 10:10 (FBP), equal low. Unless you dont use internals as FTT's. We did exit the Lat on the opposite side so something completed inside.

Looking at your gaussians pt2 is inside your previous traverse (thick orange container)

I personally dont like trading with people, I find it a distraction. On the flip side when mkt is quiet it is nice to have people around.

Spyder always said he could tell which direction a lateral would exit based on the first bar. I hope you are that proficient

This thread is out of control. John is merely charging for his time, he has every right to do so. Instead of wasting time with rants. Post chats! Antagonism is not constructive

Somewhere in this thread there is an explanation. As far as I remember click the Telephone button (Update data from Genesis). In the Download special file section, type "PVTools" then Start Otherwise call support, they will guide you.

EL sucks. It is an idiots language. Multicharts. NET is moving in the same direction as Ninjatrader. Whatever can be put to paper can be programmed.

Please could you post an annotated chart showing the full potential of this method. I am more interested in seeing the stuff Spyder and Jack dont see. Thanks

I had a good laugh, Do you think Tams chart has all the possible market combinations between gaps and de-gaps? I think you need to re-read what I wrote; I said your example is random NOT the market is random. Big Big Difference. Surely you can see the difference between that? This is where I bow out. Good luck.

I don't make reckless statements like PTVtrader. I am happy to backup statements I make. (would you like a EH on the de-gapped (same 3 bars), I can make it as ugly as you like)

I am not sure how this one example proves anything. It is random in the scheme if things. There are plenty of examples where bars with gaps would give a cleaner container. Please could yourself or PTVtrader elaborate on why it is superior, what am I missing? Thanks

PTVtrader, "Inter-bar degapping IS superior", Bold statement (needs to be backed up) Please could you demonstrate with an example where the inter-bar degapping gave you an edge over bars with gaps? Thanks

Million dollar question Spyder never spoke about entry and exit points. Only FTT to FTT

My definition includes commission. It is a good indication of over trading, especially if washing trades are part of your trading.