The Price / Volume Relationship

[wilddog 10]

patrader, as an assignment use the picture attached and place your pt1,p2 and p3 of your different fractals in respective places.

 

You may have an "aha" moment.

 

HTH

 

Credits go to Nkhoi

[Frontrunner 10]

wilddog, I'll give it a shot..have to look close at the small numbers for the faster fractals

 

hth

[Frontrunner 10]

LOL did make one mistake on the pt1-2-3 drill....the first chart is a downtrend so the pt3's should all be red not black and the second chart is a uptrend so of course all the pt3's should also be black.....sorry for any confusion

[patrader 10]

The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw.' In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.

 

Here is my latest refinement of ways a lateral can be "killed" (with enlightment from jbarnby).

The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw' (internal formation) and the second bar of this internal is on DECREASING VOLUME.In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.If the second bar of the internal formation is on INCREASING VOLUME then the lateral is terminated (killed) and does not require the "third" close outside the lateral boundary.hth

[patrader 10]

[/u] As to whether or not an I.B.G.S. on increasing Volume does or does not terminate a lateral. Does it?

 

 

- Spydertrader

 

Continuing the refinement of possible ways a lateral formation are terminated (killed) i have found that ibgs's on increasing volume where the ibgs breaks outside the boundary of the lateral does kill it (no matter where the close of the bar).Ibgs's on increasing volume where the high/low are fully inside the lateral boundaries do not kill it.Ibgs's on decreasing volume do not kill a lateral.OB's(outside bars) also follow the same rules as ibgs's when the ob is also an ibgs.hth

[jbarnby 10]

Here is my latest refinement of ways a lateral can be "killed" (with enlightment from jbarnby).

The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw' (internal formation) and the second bar of this internal is on DECREASING VOLUME.In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.If the second bar of the internal formation is on INCREASING VOLUME then the lateral is terminated (killed) and does not require the "third" close outside the lateral boundary.hth

 

I like to refer to these as "guidelines" and not rules. I had this same discussion with a couple of my students this week about reading the market. Same applies to using IBGS or OB's to kill laterals. First and foremost, I default to the sequences and determine can we use a specific bar(s)/volume to complete a sequence or not. Because when you think about it, the role of most laterals (not all) is to take us from 2-3 of something, right? How we go about completing something can depend on how/when we kill the lat, as well as the type of lateral we're working with.

 

Sequences sequences sequences!! Just ask the students who have progressed to my live trading room - what do I harp on all day every day. Without hesitation they would tell you "sequences". Become proficient at those and you'll know exactly when your fractal has completed and exactly when you have permission to look for change.

 

I had a student yesterday who got a little rattled in real-time by the 1120 bar. But there should have been no question at that point in time - the market had NOT yet completed it's sequence.

[patrader 10]

Spyder,

 

I have a question about the attached snippet. Specifically, the 1310 bar on 08/5 (highlighted in yellow). From time to time I run across an area such as this, where I am unable to ftt the bar on any fractal. The gaussians support that this area completes the 2-3 movement, but is that possible with the ve? I'm very familiar with the valuable discussion between Romanus and PointeOne on this topic.

 

Does such an event tell me that I have taped the area incorrectly? What am I missing here?

 

.

 

While the event which you describe may indeed point to errors in annotation technique, in this specific example, no errors exist (with respect to the area under discussion).

 

 

 

Either, you do not see something which provides the FTT or you do not see a contextual difference which indicates the possibility an environment exists which has the ability to obscure that which you expect to see.

 

- Spydertrader

 

After review, and comparing the 1310 bar from 08/05 to a few others, I notice that volume accelerates in this area in a fashion similar to what we used to call Peak Volume. Seems I recall that PV would frequently mask an FTT on a VE of the tape.

 

Jbarnby,just came across this in the thread and want to thank you for posting this big time.What a huge AH HA.I have attached a chart with volume of the same day so the PEAK VOLUME (which is not labeled on that chart but should have been with a P) can be seen on that bar (keep in mind its the 12:10 bar on that chart due to the labeling of time being off by one hour).hth

Edited January 19, 2013 by patrader

[patrader 10]

 

Sequences sequences sequences!!

 

Sure thing. Let's start by taking a look at today's (6-22) S & P 500 E-Mini (The ES) using a five minute chart. Thinking fractally, we want to locate the Volume Sequences which the market displays all day, every day in every market. By describing these Volume Sequences using Volume Color (Black for Up and Red for Down), a trader should expect to see R 2 R 2 B 2 R (for a down trend) and B 2 B 2 R 2 B for an Up Trend. Again, thinking fractally, the market should provide these sequences on each and every trading fractal.

 

An example of a very fast fractal:

 

 

An example of a slightly less fast fractal:

 

 

An example of a slow fractal:

 

 

An example of the slowest fractal:

 

 

 

As you can see, irrespective of the chosen fractal, the market provides the same exact sequences. Combine these fractals, and a trader can 'see' that which must complete.

 

Learning to thoroughly and properly 'contain' Price and Volume in order to more easily see these sequences represents the first step toward profitability.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Interestingly enough what i believe is the best examples by spydertrader of sequences are not in this thread but a short lived earlier thread(Open and Free Discussion on Volume).It appears that the fractal encased by thicker purple trendlines in the 10-3-2012 chart by jbarnby corresponds to the slow fractal example.hth

Edited January 20, 2013 by patrader

[patrader 10]

B2B2R2B and R2R2B2R.Reference materals are forestgaussians.pdf (http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/e-mini-futures-trading-laboratory/5920-ideal-volume-channel-up-down-4.html#post66298)posted by spydertrader in Ideal Volume in Channel UP/Down(post #32) and Avi 8 post #2195 in this thread http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-275.html

Edited January 21, 2013 by patrader

[patrader 10]

Cleaned up the "example of slow fractal" (see attached).Corrected some of the price and matching volume bars to have correct bar coloration.Added the slightly faster nested gaussians.I believe this is same fractal weighting used by jbarnby's in the 10-3-2012 purple thick down container(traverse).One interesting side note is the placement location of the "trough" of R2R of traverse.There is some comments by spydertrader where the location of the R2R traverse trough may be located starting on http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-271.html post #2167.hth

Edited January 22, 2013 by patrader

[wilddog 10]

Cleaned up the "example of slow fractal" (see attached).Corrected some of the price and matching volume bars to have correct bar coloration.Added the slightly faster nested gaussians.I believe this is same fractal weighting used by jbarnby's in the 10-3-2012 purple thick down container(traverse).One interesting side note is the placement location of the "trough" of R2R of traverse.There is some comments by spydertrader where the location of the R2R traverse trough may be located starting on http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-271.html post #2167.hth

 

patrader, nicely done. Are you able to determine what the above is? (tape, traverse or channel)

[jbarnby 10]

[2:29:00 PM] Erica Walker: sometimes it does feel like this method is magic. i'm having a "smh" moment in a little bit of awe...!

 

A realtime skype quote from one of my "newer" students today in our trading room. I thought her comment was pretty cool.

 

Stay motivated!!

[edgararakelyan 10]

 

what do you guys think of the outcome for this stock?

 

I think it looks extremely bullish with the price increasing with the volume whereas the stock decreased on decreasing volume. Also the stock has past the possibility of it being a correction in the trend.

[Scooty 10]

[2:29:00 PM] Erica Walker: sometimes it does feel like this method is magic. i'm having a "smh" moment in a little bit of awe...!

 

A realtime skype quote from one of my "newer" students today in our trading room. I thought her comment was pretty cool.

Magic, really? Wait till she gets into muddy hours. Sorry, can't help to burst out my thought about someone showing me how magical moving average was years ago.

 

Stay motivated!!

Definitely!

[jbarnby 10]

 

what do you guys think of the outcome for this stock?

 

I think it looks extremely bullish with the price increasing with the volume whereas the stock decreased on decreasing volume. Also the stock has past the possibility of it being a correction in the trend.

 

Without a fully (and correctly) annotated chart one cannot say whether the trend is near completion or not.

[jbarnby 10]

Magic, really? Wait till she gets into muddy hours. Sorry, can't help to burst out my thought about someone showing me how magical moving average was years ago.{/QUOTE]

 

well, she's been working on learning and perfecting the method for over a year....I'd say she's more than familiar with what you call "muddy hours". And yes, magic is not an overstatement IF one knows how to track all sequences on every fractal. (I'm guessing you don't?)

[Scooty 10]

Magic, really? Wait till she gets into muddy hours. Sorry, can't help to burst out my thought about someone showing me how magical moving average was years ago.{/QUOTE]

 

well, she's been working on learning and perfecting the method for over a year....I'd say she's more than familiar with what you call "muddy hours". And yes, magic is not an overstatement IF one knows how to track all sequences on every fractal. (I'm guessing you don't?)

 

My bad, I don't mean to insult you. Personally, I have gone through a looping journey of thinking I found a 'magic' with a new idea but realized later it was just a 'one-time' magic.

 

If you could make your student to see REAL magic with barely more than a year in learning the method disclosed here, you sure know the bottle-necks in learning this method. Why not squeeze a tiny portion of your time to put up a series of one or two examples with helpful and direct clues to clarify various topics in Spydertrader's concept of sequences which should go beyond application to ideal scenario? Then leave people here to learn by themselves.

 

I appreciate a lot if you take up my suggestion.

[wilddog 10]

patrader, nicely done. Are you able to determine what the above is? (tape, traverse or channel)

 

 

patrader, sorry for confusing you with an A-Team member. I had a look through this thread and can see you have been working on this for years. Like others struggling :doh:, “Stay motivated”

 

It is good to review the basics and fundamentals like you did with internals. However, don’t overcomplicate things.

 

If you are getting stuck with the fractal drill, reverse engineer it. (What isn’t it?)

 

HTH

[wilddog 10]

Something to think about:

 

 

A fractal is a mathematical set that has a fractal dimension that usually exceeds its topological dimension[1] and may fall between the integers.[2] Fractals are typically self-similar patterns, where self-similar means they are "the same from near as from far".[3] Fractals may be exactly the same at every scale, or, as illustrated in Figure 1, they may be nearly the same at different scales.[2][4][5][6] The definition of fractal goes beyond self-similarity per se to exclude trivial self-similarity and include the idea of a detailed pattern repeating itself.[2]:166; 18[4][7]

 

Fractal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

HTH

[jbarnby 10]

 

My bad, I don't mean to insult you. Personally, I have gone through a looping journey of thinking I found a 'magic' with a new idea but realized later it was just a 'one-time' magic.

I wasn't insulted at all...i realized when I said "newer" that wasn't a fair explanation of her experience.

 

 

If you could make your student to see REAL magic with barely more than a year in learning the method disclosed here, you sure know the bottle-necks in learning this method. Why not squeeze a tiny portion of your time to put up a series of one or two examples with helpful and direct clues to clarify various topics in Spydertrader's concept of sequences which should go beyond application to ideal scenario? Then leave people here to learn by themselves.

 

I appreciate a lot if you take up my suggestion.

 

Your request is not unreasonable...and you're not the first to request it. Nothing would have pleased me more than if I could have simply referred my friends (earliest students) to this thread and set them free to learn the method. But unfortunately, while there is a WEALTH of information herein, I didn't find it enough (for me personally) to fully understand fractals. Other's experience might be different however.

 

As to why I don't provide more direct clues....I try to walk a very fine line. Why? Because I wish to respect Spyder's wishes as to how much information is fully revealed in a public forum. Clearly he could have chosen to provide direct answers throughout this thread, but he chose a different path, wanting the market to provide those answers, not the teacher. Whether we agree or disagree over his method of teaching, it is what it is. What I have done is posted fully annotated charts (something he chose not to do) and provided some clues as to where I found helpful information.

[river 10]

But unfortunately, while there is a WEALTH of information herein, I didn't find it enough (for me personally) to fully understand fractals.

 

jbarnby,

 

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, especially your recent postings. I have a couple of very sincere questions. What do you suggest, to those of us still trying to fully understand fractals? If the information in this thread isn't enough and if someone isn't already your friend (and therefore cannot join your chat room), where does one turn? Can you give us a few clues without crossing the line you wrote about above?

 

-river

[wilddog 10]

jbarnby,

 

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, especially your recent postings. I have a couple of very sincere questions. What do you suggest, to those of us still trying to fully understand fractals? If the information in this thread isn't enough and if someone isn't already your friend (and therefore cannot join your chat room), where does one turn? Can you give us a few clues without crossing the line you wrote about above?

 

-river

 

river you have been on this thread long enough to know that is a rhetorical question. The day Spyder left

 

so say we all

Edited January 25, 2013 by wilddog

[Boux 10]

One of my favorite exercises in this entire thread. In fact, I love this channel drill so much that I use it as part of the training for each of my students. There's a TON of information within this drill, and it may take you a long time to piece it all together, but it has a bit of everything that one uses in their daily decision making process...sub fractals, containers, ve's, pace accelerations, unobservable events, etc...this list goes on! If you have a problem maintaining fractal integrity, this drill will be a challenge.

 

I don't have time to lead a discussion on this exercise, but I thought it worthwhile for some of you to revisit this drill, and perhaps work through it together.

 

Spyder tells us that a new channel begins at 1415 on 10/13/10. The channel ends at 1030 on 10/15/10.

 

Good luck!

 

 

I want to work through these channels---was wondering if anyone had some un-annotated charts for the 13th, 14th and 15th----my data doesn't go back that far.

[Stevecs 10]

Sorry to be a bit ot here but what is the significance of the thin break lines in some of the formation boxes in the attached TN chart ?

 

Thanks, Steve

[wilddog 10]

Sorry to be a bit ot here but what is the significance of the thin break lines in some of the formation boxes in the attached TN chart ?

 

Thanks, Steve

 

Software formatting, no significance