Jump to content

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.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Recommended Posts

  saturo said:
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).

...

Is this good analysis?

I really meant 1-2 and 2-3 are built the same way, and 3- was not yet built that way after those 3 black bars (11:35). See attached.

I don't do the kind of analysis you're proposing, so I have no opinion on it.

5aa710764f4f1_SpyderQ1-3tapes.png.df0346ec4fac6e0ab9daaa1098cfc252.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  cnms2 said:
I really meant 1-2 and 2-3 are built the same way, and 3- was not yet built that way after those 3 black bars (11:35). See attached.

I don't do the kind of analysis you're proposing, so I have no opinion on it.

 

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
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'd word it like this: a container is made of three sub-containers, and three containers form a super-container, keeping in mind that at faster paces a container might look like a sub-container, and at slower paces it might look like a super-container. This is not my rule, it is one of the basic principles of the market operation that this method is based on. Others observed this fractal structure too, e.g. the Elliott waves.

 

In the discussed example, after those three black bars you had what looked lika just a sub-container.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  cnms2 said:
I'd word it like this: a container is made of three sub-containers, and three containers form a super-container, keeping in mind that at faster paces a container might look like a sub-container, and at slower paces it might look like a super-container.

 

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.

 

  cnms2 said:
In the discussed example, after those three black bars you had what looked like just a sub-container.

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

5aa710765debb_ES06-11(5Min)5_10_2011.thumb.jpg.337de9f50807096a2d48449812e14a50.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
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.

 

FWIW, I don't believe that will prove to be a reliable hypothesis. Careful with assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Ezzy said:
FWIW, I don't believe that will prove to be a reliable hypothesis. Careful with assumptions.

 

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
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. :)

 

You're not going to like this, but rules will get you into trouble. There are too many examples to go into, here's one:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-144.html#post116745

 

For this case IMO you need to observe what the market is doing. Not that it conforms to a specific rule set. We've been warned against making rules vs. guidelines because rules don't allow you to account for other contexts you may not have considered.

 

So more questions: If you see sub-fractals on one leg is it a requirement that you see them on all legs? Or see the same amount (or levels) of sub fractals on each leg?

 

That may or may not be helpful as you test your theory:

  Quote
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Ezzy said:
You're not going to like this, but rules will get you into trouble. There are too many examples to go into, here's one:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-144.html#post116745

 

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).

 

  Ezzy said:
For this case IMO you need to observe what the market is doing. Not that it conforms to a specific rule set.

 

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?

 

  Ezzy said:

So more questions: If you see sub-fractals on one leg is it a requirement that you see them on all legs? Or see the same amount (or levels) of sub fractals on each leg?

 

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.

Breakeven_snippet.thumb.jpg.80a0f7c1d4f4cf351104a49708d2bb4b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
IMO PV trading is 100% rules based...

With my current understanding I disagree. Binary yes, rules no. But some may argue that it's a set of binary rules.

 

  Quote
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).

It was in reference to a different chart that didn't have a lateral.

 

In the other chart with a lateral, following the lateral rules there are two places they can be drawn in. Whether they are valid or at what point they end was a part of the issue.

 

Many times I was told "do not make this into a rule." I understand that now, trying to pass it along. The rules upon rules with qualifiers thing was a hindrance.

 

  Quote
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?

 

Because you were creating rules to apply to this section, yes, but also in general. Could remove "this case."

 

Start the thick from the get go because it's what you are building next regardless of how many sub fractals show up.

 

  Quote
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!?

No, not saying that.

 

  Quote

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.

 

I have seen too many examples of certain sacred unbreakable rules being broken to state something so absolute. If you find that it works for you, great, go with it. It might work out that way most of the time.

 

For me it immediately brings to mind a chart where I know it doesn't work out. So maybe another rule is added to account for that, or you find a different way to look at it. Just my :2c: worth what you paid for it.

 

Regards,

 

EZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments much appreciated EZ...

 

  Ezzy said:
Many times I was told "do not make this into a rule." I understand that now, trying to pass it along. The rules upon rules with qualifiers thing was a hindrance.

 

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.

 

  Ezzy said:

Start the thick from the get go because it's what you are building next regardless of how many sub fractals show up.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
...

 

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.

you plan to re-code all p-v indicators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Corey said:
you plan to re-code all p-v indicators?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
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.

 

in the spirit of community,

you should share your enhancements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Tams said:
in the spirit of community,

you should share your enhancements.

 

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a VERY informative chart to study the interlocking of various fractals. Remember, noise does NOT exist.

 

When studying the chart keep in mind:

 

 

"The pattern has a defined ending after point 3 and the three iterative refinements are part of dealing with the end effects. Any trip across the parallelogram on dominant volume after point 3 prolongs the parallelogram if and only if the volume dominates and price responds to "traverse". A signal is generated when volume no longer "pushes" price to a better place in the traverse. This occurance is an ftt." (Quote from Jack)

Fractals.thumb.jpg.f0e0fde18baa882780e5e6ee0eced9b3.jpg

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
"The pattern has a defined ending after point 3 and the three iterative refinements are part of dealing with the end effects. Any trip across the parallelogram on dominant volume after point 3 prolongs the parallelogram if and only if the volume dominates and price responds to "traverse". A signal is generated when volume no longer "pushes" price to a better place in the traverse. This occurance is an ftt." (Quote from Jack)

 

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?

gucci_chart1.thumb.jpg.4e6567c4a525dd6306d086a73a2258b6.jpg

gucci_chart2.thumb.jpg.a546d331a5a722ac6d4ae08c70338bea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
This chart can also clear a lot of things up.

 

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2133515

 

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.

spyder_chartQ2.thumb.jpg.25bd6b6cb9bf4ace1ed6f59161363e80.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  saturo said:
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.

 

It's good advice. He also said:

 

  cnms2 said:
The way I understand this method, one trades only what one sees, and not what one expects to happen. Also, as volume leads price, sequences pictured by my volume annotations lead sequences pictured by my price annotations.

 

  saturo said:
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.

 

Maybe a similar thing is going on with your analysis?:

 

  saturo said:
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).

 

  saturo said:
How would you personally handle that decision point? ..what are your tells from the market?

 

See my first reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

bar_by_bar.thumb.jpg.53d8c73e8dac30853871a9bbe76c8f4d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
This is a VERY informative chart to study the interlocking of various fractals. Remember, noise does NOT exist.

 

When studying the chart keep in mind:

 

 

"The pattern has a defined ending after point 3 and the three iterative refinements are part of dealing with the end effects. Any trip across the parallelogram on dominant volume after point 3 prolongs the parallelogram if and only if the volume dominates and price responds to "traverse". A signal is generated when volume no longer "pushes" price to a better place in the traverse. This occurance is an ftt." (Quote from Jack)

Hi everybody

 

I am new to this method and after reading and studying this thread and also a lot on ET forum , I am somewhat stuck on the way to draw gaussians.

Gucci I looked over your chart and tried to establish the same on my own.

Between bar 10 and 20 I am doing something wrong .

Do I mix fractal levels ? if so how do i recognize that.

Or am I drawing these gaussians completely wrong .

TIA

DrawGaussian1.thumb.png.79e860b50fbf292b08edadb10acd1d50.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.