plantrader

Thanks for the dialog, this thread needs more of it I think you're assuming confusion that might not exist. I'm just trying to discern what YOUR usage of the method entails. Based on your yelling (haha), you're using 3 123ftt contains as a Tape, correct? That's why I asked, I thought you responded to xxioxx where that meant Traverse to you. But I wasn't sure if that's what you meant. But your 1st Tape down looks like only 1 container? I'm talking about your most recent chart. What is a "free tape"? Lats are sideways movement, consolidation, often take is to Pt3 of something.

Gucci, based on your comment, does this mean you see a set of 3 simple 123ftt containers as a Traverse, as long as a volume cycle is present?

Thanks. Regarding that first area... the first 4 black bars with the 1st one being pointed to by your arrow, when you say 'failing to propel the price higher on incr vol', you can't mean a bar closing below the bar prior to it, because they all close higher than the previous bar. And the bars all make a higher high. But two of the closes were only about a tick or so above its open and they also close within the range of the previous bar. The 2nd bar you're pointing to is an IBGS long and fails to propel the price higher than the previous bar, although the ibgs aspect has changed its mode to up/dom. Neither series of bars FTT the green container. But we do get an ITZ in the 2nd series of bars & can rebuild the container from your first arrow. I'm not sure what we're getting at though... I'm probably missing the point you're making. Can you keep clueing?

Hey Gucci, are you pointing out that despite some challenge in moving up, we were still intact to hold a trade until the 2nd instance of peak volume which signals a potential ending and signal for change?

I didn't reference a problem. You were indicating price having difficulty moving up on incr vol, although it still did continue. Incr vol with a close within the prior bar's range is somewhat of a signal for change... yet, that dynamic failed 2 or 3 times & new highs were made subsequently. I'm not sure what you're getting at or explaining/highlighting as far as what's notable in the areas you've pointed out. I'm game for discussing it though & am glad someone posted a chart here & prompted some thought. Were you pointing out that we had a hint of a SOC but that we still made higher highs & closed above each bar's open? If so, I concur. If not, I'm not sure what to see specifically. Yes, if we're in a dom up thing, then the price did move "dominantly" if the bars translated (up, which they did) and closed higher than their opens. We did have a SOC via incr vol with a close within the previous bar's range... but, that did not get traction & it didn't reverse.

Yep I can see it, but in each case the close is still higher than its open. It gave a hint that price may stall as incr dom vol wasn't pushing up much as we might expect it would. But, the move continued with a HH and close above the open for each bar until eventually we got a completed cycle up w/out a FTT at the first two fractal speeds. Then a more noticeable move down occurred. It happens a lot, and in other cases we may have gotten another dom black vol surge and moved even higher instead.

The bar immediately after the 1st one you pointed to is dominant up and its close is above its open and has incr vol. The bar immediately after the 2nd one you pointed to starts out nondom but due to the existing fast RTL it doesn't make its own container, and it closes above its open on incr vol. It changed modes from nondom to dom as it unfolded. Your medium green container accelerates due to a VE ITZ on incr vol, which means rebuild it, but the rebuilt thing doesn't FTT at the tape nor traverse fractal. Looks like it could though from the channel perspective.

Dominance, but both cases seem to have dominance after serving as a Pt3 of some kind? I'm not sure what to identify further because I'm not sure what's being discerned as being important vs not very important for those two locations. Is the distinction that "peak volume" can only occur after Pt3 and only one of the two bars you pointed out is a Pt3? One is a FTT and one is a Pt3?

Similarities: They both involve increasing volume and they both involve a mode change. Dissimilarities that I'm aware of so far: one breaks a prior container TL and the other doesn't.

The former is the FTT of something and a stitch long, the latter is the Pt3 of something and an IBGS that exhibited continuation before reversing. But I'm not sure how else you might mean the question?

Your first incr red gaussian has pace acceleration, which means that container could be a tape. If not for the fact that that tape would have to FTT outside the prior Traverse's RTL. I've got it breaking the prior Tape's RTL, but since the prior tape was an Up Tape3 as far as I can tell... we can't use PA to promote to a Tape until we also can FTT outside the Traverse RTL. Of course I could have been off on my fractals. If so, and if your medium weight brown TL is a Traverse RTL then I might see what you're describing? If your brown TL wasn't for a Traverse, then that down thing couldn't be a Tape and the close "in the zone" means rebuild down tape. Which may or may not have happened depending on where in the fractals we were to start with.

Does anybody use NinjaTrader and have a comfort level for the "Price Volume Tools" indicator package as provided on the EliteTrader thread this month (Feb 2014)? I believe it's been around for a few years already, but updated version this month.

I've got an idea... is anybody interested in practicing this together, maybe discussing a chart a couple times per week outside of this thread? That way, we can combine our collective knowledge and find out what holes we've still got. Then we can present our questions to the thread to see if others can help to clarify... then we can get back to practicing again. All the while, being able to help others in the thread as our expertise progresses? I thought bouncing questions off each other freely outside this thread might be helpful. My questions might seem basic, but I'm not THAT bad at this (have studied privately & put it to practical use on my charts)... I just don't like to make too many assumptions, so my questions seem simple at times. It's just for better understanding or confirmation. Any takers? :missy: I'll also read from Sept 2010 forward as jbarnby suggested, as I might've missed some important clarifications. So my idea is to start collaborating after I have a few days to read this thread some more. Quite a long spread out thread, as far as finding the valuable info vs things that we shouldn't heed.

Thanks guys (mandelbrot & jbarnby). My current understanding is that lateral are a min of 3 bars. I thought you were drawing 2 bar lateral formations all over the chat, hence question. While I do agree I need to study this more, it really shouldn't take 500+ pages to congeal the guidelines. That's the difficult thing with this thread, so much of it is indirect when reality it's not so hard to be direct. For example, I had no idea that dec black volume isn't required with dec black Gaussian line (since a Gaussian is a part of a volume sequence/pattern). I don't recall that being stated clearly over hundreds of pages. I thought Gaussian patterns/lines had everything to do with volume increase and decrease accordingly the direction indicated the color/pattern. This misunderstanding on my part is probably why sometimes I have the impression that the proper ones aren't discernable. Could you help with some clarity on that please? I can formulate my own trading strategy, as I'm decently knowledgeable on things like that. But it's tough to do that when the right & wrong type of basics aren't clear. That also makes it harder to practice this.

Hi jbarnby. Couple questions...I thought a lateral required 3 bars, but from your chart it looks like only two. Is two the rule, or three? Almost all the action for the day is contained in lateral the way you've drawn it. Also, how did you determine the "down black" volume line after the R2R? I don't see a decreasing black volume pattern. I do see the price action fits that pattern, though. That makes it look like you've used price to determine volume. Did you? Am I being too stringent? From a technical standpoint, it seems sometimes the correct volume Gaussians do not exist in the expected pattern or order unless we concoct it to make it fit? Or that sometimes have to use "price only" for one leg the pattern because volume doesn't fit or isn't clear, which means the corresponding expected volume line is extrapolated in the context of the whole rb2b2r2b collection even though it may not exist for one leg? Such as the down black volume line you drew? I'm just trying to understand this better, any help would be appreciated.

Hi Monkman, in trying to continually understand this approach... could you clarify? You drew an up black volume gaussian (up the mountain line) which I've annotated in blue in my attachment. Why did you call that up black volume? I get it from the context that the price action was moving up at the time, but my understanding is that "volume drives price" and that volume gaussian patterns are what drive this. How did you see or identify that up black? I know Spydertrader says this approach shows us that which exists, that we didn't know existed. But is it also sometimes seeing that which doesn't exist in order to FORCE the existence of the volume gaussian patterns? I see how you used that upward black to see in hindsight the RBBRB full sequence in hindsight, but in real-time how would you have ever seen that as black volume increase? My point is, sometimes it seems that the pattern doesn't exist on a particular level of granularity, but it might exist on a larger magnitude or vice versa. Is that true? I'm probably missing a concept, but just asking the questions as it pertains to my current understanding. Set me straight, and thanks in advance!

One more quickie... would I be grasping at straws on this conclusion: When aiming to differentiate & identify the gaussian legs, it's Ok to consider an increased volume bar of the "wrong color" as conforming to the overall gist of the that gaussian as long as the price action also conforms? For example, we're traversing upwards in price on a black dominant volume gaussian... then a bit of volume surges & we get a red volume bar BUT the price bar shows continuation of the pattern of higher lows. Therefore, the red volume bar can be considered as black as far as overall evaluation of that particular gaussian leg. It might be a hint of what's to come, but with continued "higher lows" on the price bars... at this point it's only a hint/clue but not necessarily worthy of viewing the gaussian as invalid especially if the price action is fairly tight & non-volatile? Due to there being a fine line between black/red volume in such a circumstance. So as long as price conforms it's Ok in the near-term to see the gaussian as intact until further information comes in? That, along with a similar viewpoint of flexibility during lateral price action, seems to have helped my perspective and frequency of being correct. That is, on a small sample size of course since I'm new to this. Probably an invalid sample from a statistical standpoint, as far as efficacy. (p.s. The reason I ask this question: I utilized this conclusion/viewpoint on a Sim trade today & hit both targets and it played out very well)

Understood. But what if, in the midst of what looks like a decreasing black gaussian (after an increasing red gaussian looks like it may have ended a downtrend / possible FTT), we get a red vol bar which is higher vol than the previous black bar? Does that foul up our identification? Would we be told later, by an expert, that we ignored that clue which invalidated our identification of our decreasing black gaussian? Thanks. If, during a lateral formation after a dominant gaussian, there are bars of higher (in relative terms) volume in the non-dominant direction even though overall all the vol bars are fairly small during the lateral... does that somehow change the gaussian or our interpretation of it in relation to the existing gaussian which formed prior to the lateral? Or would the vol gaussian during the lateral still be considered part of the previous dominant gaussian? Could it be a clue that the lateral breakout will be in the non-dominant direction? Or did I misunderstand, and the vol bars during a lateral should be identified as their own separate gaussian and we should attempt to draw the corresponding up/down mountain line as such? Even if doing that screws up the typical gaussian sequence of R BB R B or B RR B R? That's why I'm asking if the vol bars are part of the previous gaussian or if they're their own separate leg? Difficulty in interpreting that has caused me to get confused in my differentiation in real-time the past few days when there are quite a few laterals. Partially factoring-out the vol bars (re: gaussian identification) during laterals would have made it more clear to me at times. Are the vol bars within a lateral less important and are just a continuation of the prior gaussian until such time the lateral is broken and vol increases? Then a new gaussian leg can be identified accordingly?

@ptunic: Thanks for the reply! I'm digesting it and making sure my next follow-up questions make sense. Or, as close to making sense as I can come at this point. lol! :crap: Just one for now... are there any caveats such as the volume gaussian not having to fit any identifiable pattern during those timeframes where the price is within a lateral formation? The reason I ask is, I notice during flat price action the volume bars are often alternating colors back and forth. Or, they take turns with which color has higher volume. The past 3 days of market action, I've had a harder time identifying recognizable volume gaussians, due to them being so mixed during less volatile price behavior. And in each case of identifying something, it seems there's almost an equal oppty to identify the opposite. So I thought maybe I was missing some general premise re: how to identify the sequence. Oh, this would help me to know... what is the minimum # of volume bars needed for a gaussian line to be drawn (hiking up/down mountain)? Two bars? Or is it always several bars? Or can it actually be 1 bar to start & complete a gaussian up or down line all at the same time? I'll save my other questions, since if I get a better grip on these questions then I should be able to simplify my upcoming questions a little bit better. -plantrader

Thanks a lot for the thoughtful replies, ptunic! I appreciate that. I'll ask some follow-up questions as below, for whevenever/if you get some time to share again. Did you take a break from this because you were having too hard a time defining (differentiation) things clearly enough to make it actionable? 1) FTT = failure to traverse; thanks for the clarification. So then, in a vanilla example we'd get a point 3 and then a FTT afterwards at some point. But you mentioned a point 5, and so on. Does that means the 1-2-3 has started over? Or is it a 1-2-3-4-5-6-n sequence when the trend continues? If so, I thought Spyder said that the fractals or sequence was always the same, without exception? I'm probably just not understanding exactly what was meant. Your clarifying this helped me (thanks) "b2b-2r-2b-FTT -> r2r-2b-2r-FTT etc" 2) For the Gaussians, and the sequence of either B2B 2R 2B or R2R 2B 2R, is the repeating pattern (or fractal) the simple fact that there will be a channel or traverse with a series of touches? Even if more than 3 (or 4) touches, in cases where the trend continues in the dominant direction overall for most of a day or more than 1 day? 2.a) Is there a way to see B2B 2R 2B 2R 2B 2R as something else, and be correct in seeing it? Or is it as simple as sometimes the volume gaussians will do a sequence of "2B 2R 2B 2R" indefinitely until such time the valid existence of either B2B 2R 2B or R2R 2B 2R occurs again and is identifiable as such? 2.b) The diagram of gaussians on Page 1 of this thread shows R B2B 2R. Should there be a 2B on the end of that sequence, but happens not to be shown in the diagram? And the R in the first position of that diagram isn't part of "B2B 2R 2B"? 2.c) Is there some minimum requirement, on a given chart magnitude, for a gaussian to be valid? Let's say we're looking at a 5min chart, and so we can draw a line w/out doing hocus pocus to come up with our conclusion? Is it two same color vol bars in a row, with the 2nd having to be either increasing or decreasing so that our arrow/line makes sense in that direction? Or is it 2 of 3 bars (in any order) which have to be the same color? Or 3 of 4 bars, or any other general pattern (even if it's just "usually" the case & not a hard rule)? This question is based on the assumption that the price chart isn't completely contrary to what we're trying to identify, since I know that goes hand-in-hand with volume gaussian recognition. I do understand that the gaussian sequence pattern may exist on one magnitude/timeframe even when looking at the same chart. I'm moreso asking about identification when we're looking at the same level of granularity (more as a basis for differentiation/understanding). Overall, I'm a little bit amazed so far at the idea that there is a never-ending flow of at least 3 price touches to a channel or traverse, no matter what? I understand trend lines, chart patterns and such, from past studies, but I never really focused on whether there was a repeatable pattern of that nature which was true 100% of the time as it seems this thread is claiming. If so, that's a huge bonus towards proper market behavior identification. If this is the case, then I assume sometimes the channel or traverse can and will be very very slight as far as the slope of it? Since, sometimes the market is sideways for days or weeks at a time and our traversing of that 'almost parallel' channel would basically amount to the price action being range-bound as it bounces back and forth within the channel? But, if we correctly identify and play the touches (as related to volume), then we can still have success in what others are calling a non-trending market. Right?

Hi again. I've got a few more specific questions. I'm going to have to dig, practice and repeat until this becomes second-nature. But here are some questions I didn't get clarity on in the thread yet. 1) On page 17 of the thread, the acronym "FTT" is used but wasn't previously defined except for in the first page where it's shown in a screenshot/diagram. From the diagram, it looks like it's a first-time-touch to a new trend (traverse) when price changes direction? Or is it moreso the last data point when a trend ends? If they aren't always one in the same (end/start of trend). 2) Does B2B mean "black-to-black"? Does "2R" mean "to-red"? And "2B" means "to-black"? Or does the usage of the number 2 also indicate the # or count of volume bars of the same color? Such as needing 2 black volume bars in sequence or if not in sequence maybe 2 black bars of increasing volume (with respect to one another) in order to know that it's correct in drawing a black line via hiking up the mountain? 3) Do the Gaussian volume patterns always appear in the same exact sequence? Either B2B 2R 2B, or R2R 2B 2R, and nothing else? Or do we get valid gaussian sequences which differ from that, and it's our job to identify the ones that do match either of those two sequences if/when they finally do match those sequences (if not all the time)? 4) If the gaussians do always match either a) b2b 2r 2b or b) r2r 2b 2r, then can they overlap? Or are they distinct separate units as in a & b, exactly in that order without overlap? 5) If the gaussians don't overlap, then in order to constantly repeat either of those sequences over & over without other variations... do we have to change magnitude in order to see them? Such as, we get a b2b 2r 2b on a 5 minute chart, but then in order to see the next sequence (either b2b 2r 2b or r2r 2b 2r) might we have to also be looking at a 3 minute chart because it wouldn't be definable on a 5min chart and there'd be a period of non-valid gaussian sequence on the 5min? Just an example, hopefully you get what I'm asking on this. 6) It appears in most (or all?) the examples I've found, after price trendline touch #3 there's a price continuation in the same direction as the current traverse? Meaning, if the guassians & price action fit the 1, 2, 3 pattern... then it seems somewhat reliable that after #3 there will be a price move in the expected direction. As a result of the power of the observed volume pattern and observed price action in the current traverse. Possible trade entry signal after data point #3. Since, if my observation is correct, and if it's true (as stated in the thread) that the same fractals/patterns will occur on every scale (small or large re: tapes/traverses/channel) no matter what. Does it follow that the same above rationale could be used for data point 1 or 2 as well, as long as we're savvy enough at identifying and correlating the volume gaussians with the price action? 7) Does proper identification of the volume patterns (gaussians) and price action (tapes/traverse/channel) occur in real-time, reliably? Or is it ever-changing with so many possibilities and permutations of, that clarity is only ever gained in hindsight? I hope this isn't too many questions. The best way for me to practice and teach myself to view the market this way (properly) is to have a good enough basis so that I can avoid teaching myself something invalid without ever knowing it (as I practice). The initial basis for understanding is one of the most important building blocks to advancing any learning, since the definitions and knowledge are already a known commodity. And it's what allows the savvy to be developed as we practice and retrain our brain re: identification/differentiation. Thanks for any help and clues, all! Have any of you become comfortable/savvy enough to use this viewpoint/approach/analysis as your primary tool for your trading efforts? Matt

Hi there all fractal traders. I've spent a few hours reading this thread, although admittedly haven't taught myself how to do it yet. I find it very interesting, though, but since the only question I can ask right now is a general one... would anyone mind? Based on some of what I've read... 1) Due to the nature of this being both quantitative rules-based, but also a bit of an art (or abstract), do you find that your mistakes are mainly recognizable in hindsight, over and over and over, due to the aspect of subjectivity involved which can't be accounted for upfront in a 'rule'? Or can you be correct enough of the time so that that aspect isn't a major concern? Just curious. I'm not saying this is necessarily an issue, but it would help to get a perspective on that. 2) Has anyone started from scratch learning this, based on this thread, and taught him/herself sufficiently enough savvy with this to trade consistently profitable using it? I mean, other than the teacher SpyderTrader. I know I'm new here, and my questions are general... please don't take offense. Part of how some of us learn is to go through a process of analysis and elimination of the initial questions which pop up (so that they don't become mental roadblocks to learning). p.s. I like the way SpyderTrader's replies have a Zen aspect to them. It reminded me of a movie where someone is training to be a Ninja. Will NinjaTrader suffice? ;-)