The Price / Volume Relationship

[gucci 10]

......................................................

[frenchfry 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

 

Even if my skinny tapes would be correct and still assuming that I would have done it the same way in real time, I would still have struggled (and still do) because I wouldn't have been able to read volume (gaussians).

 

In theory IF the skinny tapes would be correct then the only thing left to do would be to simply draw the same lines that I used for the tapes down there in the volume pane. Correct?

 

Thanks jbarny!

[BigAl 10]

I use volume spikes at the morning time zones of 10:00, 10:30. 11:00, 11:30

12:00 and 12:30 to indicate market reversals.

 

See the image below.

 

Trade Well,

 

BigAl

[Tams 20]

.......... another perspective

 

 

 

.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Tams

[jbarnby 10]

Even if my skinny tapes would be correct and still assuming that I would have done it the same way in real time, I would still have struggled (and still do) because I wouldn't have been able to read volume (gaussians).

 

In theory IF the skinny tapes would be correct then the only thing left to do would be to simply draw the same lines that I used for the tapes down there in the volume pane. Correct?

 

Thanks jbarny!

 

I thought this might be interesting to see how folks would annotate the skinny gaussians up to 1105. Particularly following the recent discussion of when/where to draw a nondom gaussian. It appears that while some look for a legitimate down container, other's might draw their nondom gaussian to a sym pennant formation, etc. Should the requirements for a nondom container be the same on every fractal? Or are they different for the skinny (fastest) fractal which we monitor?

[frenchfry 10]

For the fractal you're working on, starting with the 10 cases, the first container you can draw is extended and fanned up through bar 9.

 

Everything so far has been contained by the RTL, fanning all the way. There is a question on the pennant but it doesn't cause a down container for this fractal.

 

 

I understand what you mean and would agree with you and gucci here.

 

What about the OB? It's decreasing volume so I'd be suspicious. As with the pennant waiting for another bar can help. You have 2 preliminary lines drawn with the OB for a possible down container.

 

Your "preliminary lines" comment could bring down my reasoning for creating a new slower fractal when I have bar 10 and the gaussians that I drew.

 

Are you saying that even though I can/should draw two lines in opposite directions whenever I have an OB I still need to have the next bar after the OB to see which of the two lines is still valid and which of the two I can eliminate. In that case I would never have had a down tape and therefore I'm still in the same fractal.

 

On the other hand some people could now say: "....look at the YM... look at finer tools... look at the 1 minute chart... etc." There we could probably see that the move from bar 9 to the low of the OB was a non-dom followed by a dom move to the top of the OB. Well... in this example I'm not using any of those finer tools (yet).

 

Please draw in the point 2 to point 3 non-dominant container that's annotated here.

What bar is point 2 and what bar is point 3?

 

If I would only look at volume (that's what I did in that example) then pt2 would be at that second volume peak (bar 7) and pt 3 at that volume through of bar 10.

 

However if I would now try to use price only then pt2 would be the top of bar 9 and pt 3 the low of bar 10. That is because I would use the down lines between bar 9 and bar 10 as the down tape that I was looking for and the up lines between bar 9 and 10 as the new up tape that would have to come next. But as I said above what I did might not be valid and therefore I'm still in the same container (same fractal) that started with bar 0.

 

If I'm still in the same container(fractal) then what must come next is a down tap followed by an up tape. We would then have the next slower fractal and would then be looking for the FTT of that slower fractal. Everybody agrees?

[frenchfry 10]

.......... another perspective

.

 

I think I see what you mean...

[cnms2 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

It depends on the principles you use to draw your tapes, e.g. if you look how the price moved inside the bars. Volume leads price.

[patrader 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

 

Did your "good authority" also mention that the snippet may represent a lateral(thanks to cnms2 for posting chart with sym lateral highlited) traverse? The sym lateral created a non-dom boundary on bar 6 and every time the bulls tried to breakout of the lateral they failed.Bar 19 not only failed to breakout of the skinny up container's rtl but also bounced off the bottom of the sym lateral.Pace dropped off which many times leads to the sequences "stretching out"(faster fractals become visible).Maybe friday's(4-8-11) chart starting with bar 11 may be interesting to discuss.hth

[jbarnby 10]

Did your "good authority" also mention that the snippet may represent a lateral(thanks to cnms2 for posting chart with sym lateral highlited) traverse? The sym lateral created a non-dom boundary on bar 6 and every time the bulls tried to breakout of the lateral they failed.Bar 19 not only failed to breakout of the skinny up container's rtl but also bounced off the bottom of the sym lateral.Pace dropped off which many times leads to the sequences "stretching out"(faster fractals become visible).Maybe friday's(4-8-11) chart starting with bar 11 may be interesting to discuss.hth

 

Well, my good authority was Spydertrader and his detailed analysis did not include this as a lateral. Hope that helps.

[Ezzy 10]

I thought this might be interesting to see how folks would annotate the skinny gaussians up to 1105. Particularly following the recent discussion of when/where to draw a nondom gaussian. It appears that while some look for a legitimate down container, other's might draw their nondom gaussian to a sym pennant formation, etc. Should the requirements for a nondom container be the same on every fractal? Or are they different for the skinny (fastest) fractal which we monitor?

 

There was a brief mention (Vegas Expo?) about not drawing a trough to the 2nd bar of a pennant, but that may have been context specific and would take a long time to find - project for another time. That wasn't considered for Frenchfry's example but thought it was worth mentioning.

 

Interesting chart to bring up BTW. We've already seen a couple ways to annotate to the end, one being to 11:30 and the other 11:45. It's been done both ways on similar charts. And since 11:45 is an OB thought Frenchfry might appreciate this next chart.

 

Attached is a train wreck of a chart that was revised many times, several of us worked together on this one and we had some guidance from Spydertrader. That does not mean in any way that it's correctly annotated and there are no gaussians on the chart. They were done on paper - have to do your own. Thought it might be helpful to pass it along so it could torment a whole new group. In this version the OB at 15:15 finished the up traverse. It's a tough one to see that and fit it in to a particular rule set or view on containers. A bit different from the OB on jbarnby's chart. If it gives anyone fits blame him for bringing it up.

 

Are you saying that even though I can/should draw two lines in opposite directions whenever I have an OB I still need to have the next bar after the OB to see which of the two lines is still valid and which of the two I can eliminate. In that case I would never have had a down tape and therefore I'm still in the same fractal.

 

On the other hand some people could now say: "....look at the YM... look at finer tools... look at the 1 minute chart... etc." There we could probably see that the move from bar 9 to the low of the OB was a non-dom followed by a dom move to the top of the OB. Well... in this example I'm not using any of those finer tools (yet).

 

If I would only look at volume (that's what I did in that example) then pt2 would be at that second volume peak (bar 7) and pt 3 at that volume through of bar 10.

 

The OB returns to the dominant direction, it's not changing dominance or continuing the non-dom move (no increasing volume) - just an observation. So another bar would be helpful in this particular case. While there is nothing wrong with putting both sets of lines in, there was a discussion on ET about taping to an OB. Though that example doesn't apply here (in case you wanted to look it up).

 

An OB may have a b2b or r2r within it, and probably a 2x here if you go fine enough, but in this specific situation it's probably not anything to worry about.

 

As far as looking at the YM or finer tools, usually if you have to do that it's not on a fractal you need to be concerned about. That's if you're sticking to the 5min only for trading. This speaks directly to issues people have with fractal jumping and trying to make a traverse or channel out of couple sub-sub tape level moves. Of course it's helpful at times to help see things, and in certain cases it may be necessary to see something that has bearing on the 5 min, but those are very rare cases.

 

If you have it down on the 5 min then by all means run wild with the YM, keeping in mind you may need to use other fine tools at that level. Not that anyone has to stick with any particular level.

[jbarnby 10]

Ahhh yes - I remember this day very well!! I recall working on this for weeks! Here is a blank version for those who need it.

[innersky 10]

Is this a recent chart?

 

thanks

 

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

[jbarnby 10]

Nope - the chart date is 06/03/09

[Corey 10]

Nope - the chart date is 06/03/09

they all look alike.

[SK0 10]

Ahhh yes - I remember this day very well!! I recall working on this for weeks! Here is a blank version for those who need it.

 

Do you have prior day's chart? The Lime Green Long Traverse in Ezzy's annotated chart looks like a Long Channel and then fanned.

[jbarnby 10]

Here you go - 04/27/09

[Breakeven 10]

 

Please draw in the point 2 to point 3 non-dominant container that's annotated here.

 

 

 

So all you have in terms of the sequences (judging from the provided snippet) is B2B. Try to draw the non-dominant 2R tape there.

 

 

I quoted Ezzy and Gucci here but I am throwing this out for anyone who would like to comment.

 

It seems that the lack of a non-dom container in Frenchfry's example helps to determine what the example cannot be. There is no non-dom tape, so the X2X continues.

 

How can this be applied to the attached? This example is a dom Traverse of a down Channel (pt3>end of the Channel) according to Spyder.

 

What is different in P/V in this example so that there is no need for a non-dom container?

 

There are no annotations for ease of drawing if anyone is willing.

 

Thanks

[Breakeven 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

 

This seems like a nice opening to ask a question I have concerning dominance.

 

The cycle of a Traverse is non-dom>dom(x2x) / non-dom(2y) / dom(2x). So for this chart we have a tape that takes care of non-dom>dom of the Traverse up through 11:05.

 

But where is the dominance?

 

I have always understood (probably incorrectly) that dominance concerns both Price and Volume. In this chart I do not see any dominance happening up through 11:05 so how can the non-dom>dom portion of a Traverse be satisfied?

 

I know (heh) that a Traverse requires dominance in the 2x (post pt3) portion of the cycle in order to complete. Am I incorrect that dominance is also required in the x2x (pt1>pt2) portion of the cycle?

 

Chart reposted with a little diagram from Spyder (at least I think it was from him).

 

Thanks!

[patrader 10]

down container at bookmark(horizontal black line extended to right from pt 2)

[Ezzy 10]

It seems that the lack of a non-dom container in Frenchfry's example helps to determine what the example cannot be. There is no non-dom tape, so the X2X continues.

 

How can this be applied to the attached? This example is a dom Traverse of a down Channel (pt3>end of the Channel) according to Spyder.

 

What is different in P/V in this example so that there is no need for a non-dom container?

 

There are no annotations for ease of drawing if anyone is willing.

 

Thanks

 

It is extremely difficult to give any answers of value unless there is a fully annotated chart. There is no context, no pace levels, time of day, lines from the previous traverse, etc. The answer will depend on context, and how you define a traverse. Otherwise what is appropriate here may not work in other areas.

 

Did Spydertrader actually say that leg was a traverse?

If it is in fact a traverse, was there any extraordinary context or event?

How did the prior traverse form? There was a drill about that in this thread.

 

This seems like a nice opening to ask a question I have concerning dominance.

 

The cycle of a Traverse is non-dom>dom(x2x) / non-dom(2y) / dom(2x). So for this chart we have a tape that takes care of non-dom>dom of the Traverse up through 11:05.

 

But where is the dominance?

 

I have always understood (probably incorrectly) that dominance concerns both Price and Volume. In this chart I do not see any dominance happening up through 11:05 so how can the non-dom>dom portion of a Traverse be satisfied?

 

If there wasn't any dominance then how would you have a traverse?

 

Do you see it on any of the legs?

Could there be a context issue?

Could there be another indicator of dominance other than what you're looking for?

Maybe a fully annotated chart would help?

 

At one time Spydertrader kept saying "forget what you know" when someone got stuck. Maybe it's applicable here? Don't know, just throwing that out in case something from the past is preventing you from seeing it.

[jbarnby 10]

If I'm not mistaken, Breakeven's snippet is the last leg of the channel from 10/14/10. I'm sure he'll correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited April 13, 2011 by jbarnby

[cnms2 10]

I quoted Ezzy and Gucci here but I am throwing this out for anyone who would like to comment.

 

It seems that the lack of a non-dom container in Frenchfry's example helps to determine what the example cannot be. There is no non-dom tape, so the X2X continues.

 

How can this be applied to the attached? This example is a dom Traverse of a down Channel (pt3>end of the Channel) according to Spyder.

 

What is different in P/V in this example so that there is no need for a non-dom container?

 

There are no annotations for ease of drawing if anyone is willing.

 

Thanks

Just drawing the tapes.

[Corey 10]

This seems like a nice opening to ask a question I have concerning dominance.

 

....

Chart reposted with a little diagram from Spyder (at least I think it was from him).

 

Thanks!

 

[cnms2 10]

This seems like a nice opening to ask a question I have concerning dominance.

 

The cycle of a Traverse is non-dom>dom(x2x) / non-dom(2y) / dom(2x). So for this chart we have a tape that takes care of non-dom>dom of the Traverse up through 11:05.

 

But where is the dominance?

 

I have always understood (probably incorrectly) that dominance concerns both Price and Volume. In this chart I do not see any dominance happening up through 11:05 so how can the non-dom>dom portion of a Traverse be satisfied?

 

I know (heh) that a Traverse requires dominance in the 2x (post pt3) portion of the cycle in order to complete. Am I incorrect that dominance is also required in the x2x (pt1>pt2) portion of the cycle?

 

Chart reposted with a little diagram from Spyder (at least I think it was from him).

 

Thanks!

B2B2R2B, or digging in: (b2b2r2b)2R2B.