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

Reading through the posts for that discussion:

 

ehorn thought it was a down Tape:

romanus thought it was a down Traverse:

cnms2 thought it was a down Channel:

 

Spyder infers (only by referring to what came before the posted chart)

that it was a down Tape. to the 15.35 bar, from which we get the last 2B up Tape

to complete an up Traverse.

 

I stand corrected if I've mis-understood those series of past posts.

 

Thx

 

PS: logic would suggest that one would need to have known how to correctly annotate the "thing" prior to the chart in question in order to have correctly annotated the chart in question etc..etc.. !

 

I haven't re-read thru those old posts but I also recall the same as filtertip. And fwiw, i would see it as a tape as well.

Edited by jbarnby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if it is a down tape or traverse, where exactly does it start then?

 

Heisenberg

 

It would seem the "thing" started on the 13.05 bar.

 

romanus thought it was a down Traverse.

ljyoung agreed

 

Originally Posted by ljyoung »

The reference to going with romanus was not pulled out of the ether. It was simply a statement of agreement with his logic. It had nothing to do with being right or wrong, good or bad, etc....

If the market shows his/my interpretation to be in error ...

 

 

however Spyder seems to say otherwise.

 

Think for a moment.

 

The market had already invalidated the interpretation. In addition, something must have indicated what to expect next, prior to, the market creating the posted snippet. - something which should have told you exactly what the market had to create.

 

(those are Spyders bold text)

 

What transpired the following day led those at the time

to conclude the snippet must have been a Tape.

At least that's my understanding of it all (and I stand corrected).

 

hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point for recent posts is not to say cnms2 is wrong or right.

Please, it's a joy to have anyone who knows more than me contribute to help us.

 

Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ?

 

This is to say that if we thought it was a Traverse we would be lookng at how to annotate it, some what differently then if it was a Tape.

 

Whilst I'm more clear as to what componants are required to build a Tape

I for one am still more than unclear as to how to know those components have been met.

Which might seem a contradiction.

 

For that reason I posted (and presume cnms2 did too), and with all the hope in the world, hope that those that do know will continue to post and help, as they have been.

 

Kind regards to all.

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point for recent posts is not to say cnms2 is wrong or right.

Please, it's a joy to have anyone who knows more than me contribute to help us.

 

Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ?

 

This is to say that if we thought it was a Traverse we would be lookng at how to annotate it, some what differently then if it was a Tape.

 

Whilst I'm more clear as to what componants are required to build a Tape

I for one am still more than unclear as to how to know those components have been met.

Which might seem a contradiction.

 

For that reason I posted (and presume cnms2 did too), and with all the hope in the world, hope that those that do know will continue to post and help, as they have been.

 

Kind regards to all.

 

Spyder made it very clear there is only ONE way to interpret the market. It is fantastic people are posting their charts and their interpretations. Keep it up.

 

What I am trying to say is be very careful what you take from other charts besides Spyders. I have been down that rabbit hole and wasted a lot of time learning wrong principles.

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ? ...
I eventually understood the point of controversy: is this a tape / traverse / channel? I believe this not to be the point of the drill, and that how you annotate the snippet doesn't depend on the answer to that question.

 

As we all know, the price-volume relationship as well at this method work on any time frame, so on any sufficiently large chart snippet we'll see at least three fractals named tape / traverse / channel, or L1 / L2 / L3, or whatever. On this annotation drill snippet we can see the three fractals, and even more. We should annotate the snippet in the same way independently of what time scale it uses: from the fastest observable fractal building up the slower ones.

 

I quickly annotated three fractals: gray / purple and blue / medium weight purple, to illustrate my point.

5aa7119c4de7a_2009-08-04on130109spydertraderpost334threefractals.thumb.jpg.e3e677ab33715bea5871504d16fa7411.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spyder made it very clear there is only ONE way to interpret the market. It is fantastic people are posting their charts and their interpretations. Keep it up.

 

What I am trying to say is be very careful what you take from other charts besides Spyders. I have been down that rabbit hole and wasted a lot of time learning wrong principles.

 

HTH

 

I tend to agree - only one correct way to view this imho. And the answer for me (in this example) comes clearly from the volume pane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehorn responded to Spydertrader's questions:

 

- What did the market form? Ehorn's answer, 'A Tape'.

- How do you know? Ehorn's answer, 'Volume'.

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-42.html#post72565

 

Did ehorn indicate that 'it' was a Down Tape? Clearly, it is NOT. Funny that people here do not like to clarify.

 

This was his original annotations that he posted. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12702d1249417144-price-volume-relationship-08042009.jpg

 

Then he showed part of his corrected annotation after Spydertrader's question. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12708d1249439006-price-volume-relationship-annotationdrill.jpg

 

And then, he posted his annotated chart for the next day to show that there was no jump on fractals. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12727d1249487430-price-volume-relationship-morningtrades.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to agree - only one correct way to view this imho. And the answer for me (in this example) comes clearly from the volume pane.

 

Would you explain more about "clearly from the volume pane" pls? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehorn responded to Spydertrader's questions:

 

- What did the market form? Ehorn's answer, 'A Tape'.

- How do you know? Ehorn's answer, 'Volume'.

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-42.html#post72565

 

Did ehorn indicate that 'it' was a Down Tape? Clearly, it is NOT. Funny that people here do not like to clarify.

 

This was his original annotations that he posted. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12702d1249417144-price-volume-relationship-08042009.jpg

 

Then he showed part of his corrected annotation after Spydertrader's question. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12708d1249439006-price-volume-relationship-annotationdrill.jpg

 

And then, he posted his annotated chart for the next day to show that there was no jump on fractals. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12727d1249487430-price-volume-relationship-morningtrades.jpg

 

It was a nondominant down tape and what came next verified it as such. (btw ehorns gaussians are not correct) I had forgotten what came next but thanks for posting the next day's chart. I keep encouraging folks to reread this thread's discussion from the fall of 2010. The answer to what something is (or is not) resides in the price AND volume pane. I spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread, but later found that most everything one needs to be successful is right here within this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a nondominant down tape and what came next verified it as such. (btw ehorns gaussians are not correct) I had forgotten what came next but thanks for posting the next day's chart. I keep encouraging folks to reread this thread's discussion from the fall of 2010. The answer to what something is (or is not) resides in the price AND volume pane. I spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread, but later found that most everything one needs to be successful is right here within this discussion.

 

So you spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread to understand everything, what makes you think that, for the rest of us, it's going to be sufficient to just reread this thread from fall 2010? You say most is in that discussion, so not everything is there???

 

Something tells me this is close to mission impossible, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

 

Heisenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have for 8th_9th and 10th Jan 2013.

Done in real time.

 

If anyone can care to comment on if I am wrong (and if so where and why ?)

or correct, I'd be grateful.

 

Thx

 

PS 2nd chart is a better view of today 10th.

5aa7119cc7b24_ES03-13(5Min)8_9_10_01_2013.thumb.jpg.8c7544cbad7e0cee58911dbad2bb9c9c.jpg

5aa7119ccff37_ES03-13(5Min)8_9_10_01_2013.2.thumb.jpg.24cd22b94861b97771f681a1c9eb6362.jpg

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread to understand everything, what makes you think that, for the rest of us, it's going to be sufficient to just reread this thread from fall 2010? You say most is in that discussion, so not everything is there???

 

Something tells me this is close to mission impossible, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

 

Heisenberg

 

I've stated before (in a previous post) that I think it's very difficult to teach and/or learn this method from a forum such as this. So many things are open to misinterpretation. To my knowledge there haven't been a lot of long-term success stories from this thread or previous threads on another site. Many have adapted this method or "merged" it with other ways of viewing the market. And to be honest, spyder changed his own personal approach when he started this thread on TL. Prior to the start of this thread he annotated as many as five or six (or more) gaussian levels, but he never posted those charts in a public forum. However, in 2009, he adjusted his approach to only annotate 3 fractals at most....tape, traverse, & channel.

 

With that said, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from studying. Just know that it will likely take a long time before you "see" it. It definitely did with me and that was with a lot of support and help outside of this thread. I mentioned before that I privately mentor a small group of folks....but even with the day-to-day support and our frequent discussions, it takes some time for folks to 1. learn the method, and 2. learn to trust what they see and act upon it.

 

It's a process - and not an easy one. Hang in there!!

Edited by jbarnby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a nondominant down tape and what came next verified it as such. (btw ehorns gaussians are not correct) I had forgotten what came next but thanks for posting the next day's chart. I keep encouraging folks to reread this thread's discussion from the fall of 2010. The answer to what something is (or is not) resides in the price AND volume pane. I spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread, but later found that most everything one needs to be successful is right here within this discussion.

Don't be shy. Please put up your annotations so we can learn how 'it' was a non-dominant Down Tape.

 

I don't follow ehorn's or anyone's annotations blindly. But as you can tell from his color scheme on the annotations on that day and the next day, 'it' was a non-dominant Down Traverse.

 

FYI, I did not follow and learn from any discussion in this TL thread in the past. I dislike rhetorical exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I have for 8th_9th and 10th Jan 2013.

Done in real time.

 

If anyone can care to comment on if I am wrong (and if so where and why ?)

or correct, I'd be grateful.

 

Thx

 

PS 2nd chart is a better view of today 10th.

 

Filtertip i may be wrong but compared to my charts looks like your missing the first hour of 5m bars.hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be shy. Please put up your annotations so we can learn how 'it' was a non-dominant Down Tape.

 

I don't follow ehorn's or anyone's annotations blindly. But as you can tell from his color scheme on the annotations on that day and the next day, 'it' was a non-dominant Down Traverse.

 

FYI, I did not follow and learn from any discussion in this TL thread in the past. I dislike rhetorical exchanges.

 

I do follow ehorns annotations, but as I stated, they are not correct. And to be honest, had I commented or posted my chart at that time in 2009, I probably would have annotated similarly to ehorn. He and I used to work together in a daily chat group. But there were many things I did not understand at that time. The volume sequences, necessary order of events, and combination of trendlines prevent this from being a traverse.

 

But in any case, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. All the best to you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filtertip i may be wrong but compared to my charts looks like your missing the first hour of 5m bars.hth

 

patrader.

 

How odd..thankyou for noticing.

so far, having refreshed data etc..it's still staying the same..

 

At the time I was confused by the 10.55 to 11.40 period on volume..but didn't notice the time....so this may explain it..

but as I say I'm so far unable to get the missing data..

 

thx again

 

btw..anyones charts and annotations to compare with would be appreciated.

 

PS: Ok got the missing data ...what to do with the area in the black square ?

Help ?

5aa7119ce9e25_ES03-13(5Min)8_9_10_01_2013.3.thumb.jpg.44d9d3f870483de9f15e2ad3b4c2c7eb.jpg

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jbarnby, thanks for your comments and posts.In the attached chart from post #3708 the 12:05 est bar (see lite blue arrow pointing to this bar) appears to be the lateral formation kill bar.Two bars out of lateral formation does kill a lateral formation but the exception is when the second bar out forms a flaw (internal formation).I believe that is a fbp(internal formation) but i did notice the second bar is increasing black volume.Hmm.Could you enlighten me as to what killed that lateral formation and am i reading that correct that the lateral formation was killed on that bar.Tia

5aa7119d0caec_01-02-13jbarnbylatkillbar.thumb.PNG.3006b13fdc1dc9e6cacfe0891d91cf01.PNG

Edited by patrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jbarnby, thanks for your comments and posts.In the attached chart from post #3708 the 12:05 est bar (see lite blue arrow pointing to this bar) appears to be the lateral formation kill bar.Two bars out of lateral formation does kill a lateral formation but the exception is when the second bar out forms a flaw (internal formation).I believe that is a fbp(internal formation) but i did notice the second bar is increasing black volume.Hmm.Could you enlighten me as to what killed that lateral formation and am i reading that correct that the lateral formation was killed on that bar.Tia

 

I dont remember who posted it, it was how Jack treats 2 bar (It is in this thread) If the second bar of an internal has increasing volume you treat them as separate bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it :)

 

"All inside formations have the same rules. The first bar is always processed. the second or sunsequence bar(s) is NOT processed if smaller in volume than the first. If NOT, then it is processed.

 

For out side bars, they count as two bars in a trends sequence. THe first value is done as usual. The second value is simple: it is the NEXT value in the trend sequence."

 

Forums - The bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do follow ehorns annotations, but as I stated, they are not correct. And to be honest, had I commented or posted my chart at that time in 2009, I probably would have annotated similarly to ehorn. He and I used to work together in a daily chat group. But there were many things I did not understand at that time. The volume sequences, necessary order of events, and combination of trendlines prevent this from being a traverse.

 

But in any case, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. All the best to you!!

 

No problem. I do follow why 'it' would look like a Down Tape. I should check how the day before would be annotated. But I am lazy and am very strong minded about my inferences and logic. Also, I treat Traverses casually as contextual elements, good to be correct but not threatening my beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. Volume sequences.

 

I just wanted to point out, that I appreciate your help and I see that many others do as well. When we spoke a couple months ago, it sounded like you were on the fence about getting involved. Many others had expressed the same view as well. Over the past couple of months things have changed, and I genuinely believe that many of us have started to improve.

 

I just wanted to challenge you publicly to not hold back. Share with us detailed answers with graphical explanations. Help provide us with information that is not a replay of the same old record. We may not be your family or good friends, but we are still a community of members that have been working hard together to achieve a common goal.

 

To everyone: Try to avoid repetitive generalities that are undermining and unhelpful. If you are explaining a topic the best you can, then no hurt in that.

 

If you were willing to go into detail on how you build your fractals that would be very helpful. Specifically, how you interpret the volume pace levels in determining the length of the cycle.

 

When your looking for a shift or change (start of B2B or R2R), and your looking to make an entry, what do you specifically look for to confirm that you are seeing Change, and not a continuation of the last leg of the prior trend?

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • 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/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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