The Price / Volume Relationship

[Heisenberg 10]

So if it is a down tape or traverse, where exactly does it start then?

 

Heisenberg

[jbarnby 10]

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 January 10, 2013 by jbarnby

[FilterTip 10]

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

[FilterTip 10]

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 January 10, 2013 by FilterTip

[wilddog 10]

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

[cnms2 10]

... 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.

[jbarnby 10]

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.

[SK0 10]

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

[SK0 10]

What you see is what you get. Look at ehorn next-day's chart I posted too.

[wind_ 11]

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.

[jbarnby 10]

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.

[jbarnby 10]

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

 

Sure. Volume sequences.

[Heisenberg 10]

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

[FilterTip 10]

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.

Edited January 10, 2013 by FilterTip

[jbarnby 10]

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 January 10, 2013 by jbarnby

[SK0 10]

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.

[patrader 10]

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

[jbarnby 10]

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!!

[FilterTip 10]

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 ?

Edited January 11, 2013 by FilterTip

[patrader 10]

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

Edited January 11, 2013 by patrader

[jbarnby 10]

but i did notice the second bar is increasing black volume.Hmm.

 

It doesn't appear you need my help at all!

[wilddog 10]

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.

[wilddog 10]

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

[SK0 10]

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.

[Monkman 10]

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?