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.
Breakeven
-
Content Count
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Breakeven
-
Let me make another attempt at this. On the 19th the market made a gap adjusted high over the 10-13 14:15et Pt1. So, somewhere between there we have: 1. A complete down Channel, 2. At least 3 Traverses, 3. At least 9 Tapes. When I posted my first chart of 10-13 to 10-14 (this post) you confirmed for me that I jumped fractals with my gaussians. My instinct was that I completed the Traverse too soon but that was not correct. I believe now that my original Traverse actually ended in the correct place even though I did jump fractals to get there. I think that is what makes this so difficult, sometimes incorrect annotations can get the correct answer. For this chart I attempted to apply the same "reasons" consistently across each container. As I said, the Traverse still ends in the same spot as my original attempt but the road to get there is different. Every bar seems to fit with the exception of a single bar in the last Tape (the last black bar before the end of the Tape). WWT takes care of this bar but I think I would have reversed here in realtime. If you would be so kind, I would like to ask the same question as my original post on this: Did I still manage to jump fractals with the gaussians shown? Any other comments more than welcome as well. TIA
-
Alright! Now I am getting on the same page as you. This is starting to make sense It appears that volume continues to make higher peaks before ending the move on relatively low black volume. Volume also makes a higher peak that the volume at Pt 1. To be honest though, I am not sure exactly what this is telling me. Thanks again!
-
Spyder, I had planned for this chart to be a reworked version of my previous chart. But seeing as how many possibilities there are in that area for me to make mistakes it may be best to move forward a bit before going back. Also, I do not want to give the impression that I am just slinging crap at this until something sticks. This chart is the period directly following the last, 10/14 pm-10/15am. This area had me questioning my annotations on the previous chart due to what is marked as an up Tape. I feel this has to be a Tape and because of what follows, a down Traverse could not have preceded this area. Normally, I would just correct my fractals and move on but that does not aid in learning. Like you said, things need to be precise. This time I will figure out why I was wrong. For the up Tape there is a nice B2B which gets me outside the previous down Tape. A lateral formation creates the 2R. As price exits the lateral the market provides 2B. This is followed by a down Tape making a lower low telling me that my Traverse could not have been complete before now. Does this sound sensible and have I arrived at the correct fractals for this area? Also, I have a more mechanical type question if you don't mind. For an IBGS, I have always tried to take the name literally. Anytime I encounter one it tells me that a gaussian line has changed direction on some fractal. Am I being too rigid in this view? Thanks again for your time!
-
Thanks for the chart. The caption on your chart says: "Each Tape is made of three "subtapes", each constructed from the 10 cases". While that seems to be the case on your chart, it is not always the case. Reference recent chart sections from Spyder attached. I suppose it comes dwon to contextual differences?
-
Thanks very much for the response. 1 and 3 are what I wanted to hear I am also happy to learn that I still jumped fractals. Mainly because, as I said, this is the kind of market action that always causes me trouble so maybe I can learn something. Also because what follows the chart I posted made my head hurt attempting to reconcile it with the annotations I had in place. My first inclination is that I completed things too quickly. This is usually how I fail, and what follows my annotated Traverse appears to me to be an up Tape then down Tape. So, by WWT my original Traverse must be a Tape. Let me chew on this for a bit and I will get a new chart posted. Thanks again!
-
Yes, this is exactly what I see. Agreed, this can not be Pt 2 of the medium sequence. Two things make logical sense to me here: 1. The medium B2B can not yet be complete. I arrive at this by WWT (what wasn't that), as it was not the 2R the B2B must still be forming. Or 2. The medium B2B was started in the wrong location. I know #2 is obviously the correct conclusion, I am just stuck on the why. 10:55 appears the same to me as 10:35. 11:05 and 11:10 form a down container which fail to move through the RTL just as happened at 10:45. However, both bars of the 11:05 container are decreasing volume unlike the previous. I really feel like I am being dense and missing something obvious, not that it would be the first time. Thank you very much for the comments!
-
Thank you for the starting point! I think my foremost problem when I go about applying a concept or a "reason" to market annotations is that I always feel there are too many variables swirling around. It feels like trying to solve X=Y+Z where only one specific and unknown value is the correct answer for X. So I end up for example trying to apply a reason why a Tape formed in a specific way, but that one has a lateral (another variable to me most of the time). Well ok, I will determine how that lateral effects the Tape, but of course I don't know for certain why the Tape is formed that way. Then the downward spiral begins :rofl: It is amazing how damn hard it is for me to find two apples to compare. And being certain both things are apples is beyond reach. So, I hope with the starting point you graciously provided to lock a few knowns in place. I am very happy you chose this particular area to give a known starting point. The first move down will almost always lead to me jumping fractals. About the only way for me to avoid fractal jumping in this case is to know my up Channel is correct and complete, so my down Traverse can't be complete until crossing (closing outside?) the Channel RTL. I am sure more precision is possible and I want to attain that precision. On this chart I have deleted my Tape gaussians because two of them don't quite seem to work the way I drew them. I also deleted many of the finer lines. I know we should start with the 10 cases and work upwards, but in this case the Tapes are giving me trouble so I hope to work from the top down. What I think I know on this chart: 1. The Green carryover up Channel is correct.(?) 2. The down Traverse can not be complete until closing outside the Channel RTL.(?) What I am hoping to beg answers to: 1. Can it be known the Traverse is not complete without the up Channel RTL (more precision)? 2. Did I still manage to jump fractals with the gaussians shown? 3. For a Pt 2, do you normally use the geometric placement or the actual point where you end the x2x? Sorry for the length. TIA
-
LOL, from your tone I am not certain I should admit that I have had that concern. And I have actually looked at the "degree" that a container is VE'd in an attempt to find differences. But I think I understand what you are saying: It is what it is.
-
Thanks very much for the guidance Just thinking out loud concerning the possibilities of close vs. trend line I see three cases for the actual close and four cases for the bid/ask. For the close there would be 1. Inside, 2. On the line, 3. Outside. For the bid/ask there would be (for a downchannel VE) 1. bid/ask both inside 2. bid on the line, ask inside 3. bid outside, ask on the line 4. bid/ask both outside. And I completely forgot what I was leading up to with this...:rofl: Suffice it to say, if my concerns are not rational I will accept that and move on Thank you for this discussion! With the known good cases in your chart snipit along with some comparison to my past charts over the next couple of days I hope to finally put this problem to bed.
-
I am working under the belief that I should know the down container is not finished as soon as the first pair of blue arrows occur. So, by EOB blue arrow #2, I should know that the down container is continuing. If this is not the case please head me off so that I can stay on the reservation Well, looking at only the two medium containers and focusing on the blue arrows I see two differences. 1. The first pair has a bar that VE and closes beyond the original LTL then has an IBGS that closes inside the original LTL. 2. The second pair does not have an IBGS and while bar 2 of this pair does close beyond the original LTL it does not close beyond the previous VE LTL. Now, it seems like I am focused on where these bars close and to be honest I do not like that. If I were to rely on just where a bar closes, what happens when some numbnut hits the ask and suddenly the close is one tick from where I would say "Yep, it closed beyond"? The same goes for the VE happening on an IBGS. What happens when by virtue of an arbitrary 5 min bar this IBGS happens to get split into two bars? Please don't think I am trying to be argumentative here. These are just the questions I am asking myself when I look for a "reason" that something happens. I try to think of reasons that would still be valid if I shifted the timestamps of the bars by 1min or whatever. Which tells me where a bar closes in relation to its open or in relation to another bars open/close is not nearly as important as what the bar actually does. Well, I know that not all VE's cause or create an accelerated container else the Pink container in this chart would accelerate. So, there must be a difference in these two examples that will be valid for all VE's that cause an accelerated container.(?)
-
I want to thank everyone for the discussion of the "three levels" chart snipit. I have spent an inordinate amount of time studying this without success. I hope that with Patraders answers I can find some resolution. Gucci asked: Why is the trough for B2B for the medium lines (thing, goat, faster fractal traverse, whatever) located at 10:45 and not at 10:35 ? But, my question has always been: Why is the medium B2B not at 10:25? Which is the point where the gaussians "should" (haha) nest. See attached.
-
I have noted the differences I see at the blue arrows. 1. DV, VE's both containers. 2. IV IBGS. VE's both containers. 3. IV VE's both containers. 4. DV, does not VE both containers. Each case has a close beyond the red/pink LTL. As the outcome is different, "closing int he zone" must not be a factor.
-
1. Yes. 2. A period of doubt and confusion trying to decide if a new thing started or if the old thing is still going. 3. A period of doubt and confusion. :crap:
-
I have always assumed that the slower fractal x2x is drawn at the second gaussian trough (not necessarily the second volume trough) because the faster fractal must complete before you have an x2x on the slower. Is this the direction you were heading? Or is there a more precise explanation? Thanks!
-
Yes, and starting the down Channel on the peak of the 26th would fit nicely. I had the 26th as pt2 of an up Channel and I have looked at that up Channel several times and it seemed correct...but it never occurred to me that my mistake might be further back than that :doh: I guess the reason I didn't want to look beyond the 28th for the mistake was that everything from 7/16 onwards just "worked". Bad case of tunnel-vision. I will work my way backwards tonight, hopefully without the blinders on. Thank you very much for the tip!
-
Hi all, I have a chart and some thoughts I was hoping to get some advice/opinions on if anyone is willing. Lately I have been doing fairly decent (still a long journey ahead) at my MADA. At times, several days or even a week or two can go by with each gap-adjusted day flowing right into the next as expected. Of course it remains to be seen if this is actually improvement or just strings of luck where my mistakes are not obviously proven wrong by the market lol. Then there are the times where a string of days is working perfectly followed by something that invalidates some or all of the previous days. Monday 8/2 ended the most recent string. :crap: So, I thought to post a chart of Friday 7/30 with my thoughts at the time of what the market was building and what was to come. I had thought the market was building a down channel starting on 7/28 bar 2. The first Traverse of this channel had several VE/Zone/Acc which I know are generally what lead to my MADA failing. But anyway, I ended the first Traverse on 7/30 bar 2/3. At this point I am building a non-dominant Traverse headed to Pt 2 of the down channel. This seemed to work out well through EOD 7/30, but of course 8/2 makes a gap-adjusted new high over my Channel Pt 1. Possible places I went wrong: 1. There was no down Channel starting on 7/28. 2. There was a Channel there and I screwed the Traverses during all the VE's causing the Channel/Traverses to end sooner than I expected. 3. The market was doing something compeletly different and through luck of multiple errors I ended up with something that just "looked" right. Failure is always an option! Please feel free to give advice on where I screwed up these last few days. I really hope the point of failure can be pinpointed (if my MADA was anywhere close) so that I can go about working out the "whys" with some surety I am in the ballpark. Attached is a chart of Friday, as this was the last day everything seemed to fit perhaps the error lies here? Ugh, re-reading this it seems to ramble. To be specific with my questions: Do you think that a down Channel started 7/28? Do you think 7/30 was an up Traverse? Thanks very much for any guidance you can give!
-
I think I understand what you are saying, but it is late enough tonight that my brain isn't registering correctly. Give me some time on this one and I may pester you with more questions on this subject. Thanks very much!
-
I think this is exactly where I went wrong. In the volume fractal diagram I took the "skinny" lines on one leg of the "medium" to mean that they would be visible for every leg. I now believe those lines are drawn on only one leg to indicate they are only visible on some legs. Thanks for the help!
-
After reviewing the charts I have annotated recently, I now see that all my annotations are one fractal "slow". By trying to draw a complete volume cycle for every Tape using 5min end of bar data I have been getting Tapes where a Traverse is actually present. In effect, my "sub-fractals" are actually Tapes and my Tapes are actually Traverses ect. I just need to get it through my head that a Traverse is the fastest fractal that will always have a full visible gaussian cycle. The bad news is that I have drawn a crap load of line that I have "labeled" wrong. The good news is that since this is all fractal I just need to convince my brain to label these same lines one fractal faster. That should put all my goats in a row For this issue at least!
-
Thanks very much for the replys! With the dec red to dec black I was trying to describe how I saw the bars moving inside the single down tape. In effect trying to see the R2R2B2R within the Tape, but I see now what you are saying about the sequence not always being visible on the 5min. This is a perfect insight to my question, and this example opened my eyes to what you are saying. I am really glad you referenced the "Clean Page 1" while explaning this because I have been looking there while trying to wrap my head around Tape volume fractals. Which leads to another question I have regarding the wording on clean page 1. Part 3 refers to the Gaussian part 1 (rising) and part 2 (falling). Does the part 1 and part 2 combined refer to the R2R of the Tape, or would part 1 be the R2R and part 2 be 2B? Thanks again for the assistance.
-
I am having a problem reconciling two of the images that Spyder posted near the beginning of the thread. One image shows a Traverse, with Tapes and Channel labeled. The second image is the volume pane fractals. I have combined the images for attachment. For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse. I have spent the last week or so on just this subject. Not just on this image alone, but comparing to other days of my own charts. From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes. Also, that each segment of a Channel will have the full sequence representing a Traverse. This is what I understand a fractal to be, each part being composed of a smaller complete part. If this understanding is off the mark, please tell me I am digging in the wrong hole. So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence. I am hoping someone can disabuse me of my understanding of the volume fractals, or help me see how those fractals show up in the Tapes of the attached Traverse. Thanks for any help
-
Continuing my journey from the beginning, attached are my thoughts on combining the two bar tapes from 7/6/09 into larger containers by fanning and accelerating. These are drawn without Gaussian fractals applied. The double line weight tapes on this chart are the smallest containers that I would normally draw, the single line weight tapes are the "ten cases" tapes. I have a few areas where guidance would be greatly appreciated: 1. Do my reasons for fanning/accelerating (noted on the chart) produce correct tapes? 2. Do I take these larger containers in combination with Gaussian fractals to produce the "true" L1 Tapes? 3. Have I gone about this backwards and should instead go from the ten cases straight to L1 Tapes with correct Gaussians? If this is the case where would sub-fractals of a Tape be identified? I understand that the purpose of this thread is to learn to seek answers from the market itself. So I will make an effort to restrict questions more towards the steps of the method instead of how the market moves.
-
Hello all, After a few month break from studying this method (and from trading in general) I have decided to start over and try to ensure I have a solid understanding of the fundamental tenants of the method. So, it seems starting at the first of this thread is exactly what I need. Attached is my attempt at the tape drawing drill from 7/06/09 using the ten cases. My intention was to draw every possible two bar tape correctly. If anyone has time to look over this please feel free to point out any omissions or errors. Also, if backtracking to the start of the thread is a derail or distraction please let me know. Thanks!