The Price / Volume Relationship

[FilterTip 10]

  Stevecs said:

Given the fractal nature, substituting tape for bbt and channel for tape would be appropriate?

 

Thanks

It seems logical:

But it is not my understanding that Tapes need to be of equal weight to build a Traverse

and that Traverses need to be of equal weight to build a Channel.

 

ie: we may have one Tape made of 3 BBT's and another Tape made of say 5 BBT's.

Also we might have one Traverse made of 3 Tapes and another Traverse made of 5 Tapes.

 

 

Rather:

 

Treat each Tape independently of each Tape in this respect.

 

Treat each Traverse independently of each Traverse in this respect.

 

Treat each Channel independently of each Channel in this respect.

 

Equal weight containers apply only in building a Tape.

 

 

 

How fractals build or get re labelled has to do with whether or not seq are complete.

Unless the seq within BBT 3 (minimum) completes then we haven't completed a Tape seq.

The logic is that not until that is done can anything else be built.

 

ie:

if the volume sequence for a Tape has not completed (which gets done in BBT 3 (minimum)

by the time price breaks out of BBT 3's rtl then we are still building BBT 3.

 

If the volume seq for a Tape has not completed (which gets done in BBT 3 (minimum)

by the time price breaks out of the Tapes RTL, then what we had up to then (BBT 1 and BBT 2 and the current BBT 3) are not a Tape. They are all just BBT 1.

 

 

In other words:

All seq have to complete to have a Tape.

If they don't, then we don't have a Tape.

If we don't have a Tape what we had can only be a BBT (1) building a Tape.

 

hth

Edited April 25, 2013 by FilterTip

[Stevecs 10]

F.T. Thank you.

If tape 1 is complete can all bbt’s of tape 2 be contained within a lateral and can tape 2 complete within that lateral?

 

Thanks

[wilddog 10]

  FilterTip said:

I'm no authority on this.

But as I'm not getting any younger and as much pain, anguish and cost

as I've been through with trying to understand this methodology to a level that is consistantly usable, the following is in an effort to help all and anyone that has either been through the same and or, to help avoid or limit the confussion going forward:

 

 

This is a RED FLAG, be very careful what you FilterTip has to say. What is the reason he does not post annotated charts. He keeps coming back with more and more theory. We are also not getting any younger. I don't think he knows how to apply the theory.

[wilddog 10]

  Heisenberg said:

I don't know if you noticed, but Jack isn't always very clear when writing stuff. I choose not to read from him anymore...

 

H.

 

Don't shoot the messenger!

[vienna 10]

  wilddog said:

Don't shoot the messenger!

 

Which one? I heard there are several aliases...:-)

[Stevecs 10]

  wilddog said:

This is a RED FLAG, be very careful.

 

I thought this is an open forum. Since when is anyone subject to your criticism? Since when is this thread about you?

[wilddog 10]

  Stevecs said:

I thought this is an open forum. Since when is anyone subject to your criticism? Since when is this thread about you?

 

I think the vacuum you had previously been living in has effected you. You always seem to misread posts (not the first time), I suggest you go back and re-read it, nowhere in the post is it about me. This thread is about the “The Price / Volume Relationship”

 

You need to relax and take a deep breath, air is free. No more need for oxygen tanks from the vacuum

[cnms2 10]

I find laudable that FilterTip shared some of his understandings of this method, and nobody should be discouraged in doing the same, as much as he feels comfortable doing. We all know that this is the Internet, and we can find treasures, garbage, altruists, jerks, and everything in between with no easy means of distinguishing among them.

[FilterTip 10]

  Stevecs said:

F.T. Thank you.

If tape 1 is complete can all bbt’s of tape 2 be contained within a lateral and can tape 2 complete within that lateral?

 

Thanks

 

My understanding of your question suggests to me that Tape 1 would have to have ended

on the first bar of a lateral in order for all of Tape 2's BBT's to be within a Lateral. (?)

 

We can end dominance within a dominant lateral.

We cannot end anything within a non dominant lateral.

 

There are definitions for Laterals.

Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals.

Laterals we are permitted to annotate through and

those we are not permitted to annotate through.

 

If we know these definitions then it would merely be a case of applying their logic to any given situation

to determine how to annotate and/or determine what we have and/or are building.

 

 

 

hth

[Scooty 10]

  Stevecs said:

Given the fractal nature, substituting tape for bbt and channel for tape would be appropriate?

 

Thanks

 

Hi Stevecs. I am confused with your sentence. Do you mean renaming Tape as BBT and Channel as Tape? Or do you actually mean renaming BBT as Tape and Tape as Traverse? I can't follow the reply from FilterTip.

 

  FilterTip said:

It seems logical:

But it is not my understanding that Tapes need to be of equal weight to build a Traverse

and that Traverses need to be of equal weight to build a Channel.

 

ie: we may have one Tape made of 3 BBT's and another Tape made of say 5 BBT's.

Also we might have one Traverse made of 3 Tapes and another Traverse made of 5 Tapes.

 

 

Rather:

 

Treat each Tape independently of each Tape in this respect.

 

Treat each Traverse independently of each Traverse in this respect.

 

Treat each Channel independently of each Channel in this respect.

 

Equal weight containers apply only in building a Tape.

 

Hi FilterTip. Are you still using YOUR convention here?

Edited April 26, 2013 by Scooty

[FilterTip 10]

  Scooty said:

I can't follow the reply from FilterTip.

Perhaps think of it in this way;

 

We can't have a Tape unless we have 3 BBT's (minimum) of equal weight.

(as per the combinations of BBT 1 being Simple or Complex in a previous post)

We can't have a Traverse unless we have 3 Tapes (minimum).

 

We could only have had 3 Tapes (minimum) if each Tape (in of itself) had 3 BBT's (minimum) of equal weight, to build each Tape.

Other wise we wouldn't have 3 Tapes (minimum) to have a Traverse.

 

And in respect of how I understood Stevecs question:

each Tape of a Traverse does not need to be of equal weight to each Tape that builds a Traverse.

And each Traverse of a Channel does not need to be of equal weight to each Traverse that builds a Channel.

 

(Reference to equal weight would only be different in respect of how PA promotes a container.)

hth

Edited April 26, 2013 by FilterTip

[Heisenberg 10]

I was wondering, on the attached chart, would the last black up traverse be a case of pace acceleration (PA), and as such be a "promoted" traverse (from being initially a tape)?

 

H.

[FilterTip 10]

  Heisenberg said:

I was wondering, on the attached chart, would the last black up traverse be a case of pace acceleration (PA), and as such be a "promoted" traverse (from being initially a tape)?

 

H.

 

As the question is out there for anyone I guess.

Then hope you don't mind me having a try at replying.

 

I would agree with you that a Tape gets promoted to a Traverse.

 

On the basis of everything starting with a BBT to build our Tape,

our first promotion would be a BBT to a Tape.

Or rather 3 non equal weight BBT's promoted to a Tape.

 

There after we would promote up one level for each succesive peak.

providing that we do not end with a decreasing peak,

which, I think would mean that we had PA but now we don't.

 

I think, also we need to be mindful that we first have an X2X.

ie: a higher peak cannot be PA if , in of itself, it is creating our first X2X.

In other words we have to have an X2X to which we can have PA.

 

From my understanding, PA in effect means we don't always see

what we would otherwise need to see for any particular container to be built.

ie: PA would mean we would not see some or our OOE's and or equal weight BBT's.

Which is ok I guess, providing we know why.

Edited April 26, 2013 by FilterTip

[cnms2 10]

  Heisenberg said:

I was wondering, on the attached chart, would the last black up traverse be a case of pace acceleration (PA), and as such be a "promoted" traverse (from being initially a tape)?

 

H.

I would annotate it a little differently.

[wilddog 10]

  Heisenberg said:

I was wondering, on the attached chart, would the last black up traverse be a case of pace acceleration (PA), and as such be a "promoted" traverse (from being initially a tape)?

 

H.

 

Another annotation possibility

[Heisenberg 10]

So I ask a question about PA, and I get answers about other annotation possibilities? What use does that serve?

I know it's a traverse (from spyder earlier in the thread), and I want to know why it is one, not 20 different ways to annotate a chart.

 

H.

[FilterTip 10]

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

hth

Edited April 27, 2013 by FilterTip

[frenchfry 10]

  Heisenberg said:

So I ask a question about PA, and I get answers about other annotation possibilities? What use does that serve?

I know it's a traverse (from spyder earlier in the thread), and I want to know why it is one, not 20 different ways to annotate a chart.

 

H.

How do you know that it is a traverse if you don't know why? Just because somebody said so?

 

How many tapes/containers (dominant, non-dominant) do you need in order to create a "traverse"? Are those tapes/containers available in your "traverse" example?

[frenchfry 10]

  FilterTip said:

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

hth

Interesting. Thanks.

 

One question... How does volume "promote" a "container" from one level to a higher level? BBT to tape, tape to traverse, traverse to channel, etc. What criteria makes this happen? Change of pace from one level to the next (next two? Three?...) higher level? Or by volume being x-times higher than "y"? Time of day? etc.

[Scooty 10]

  FilterTip said:

How fractals build or get re labelled has to do with whether or not seq are complete.

Unless the seq within BBT 3 (minimum) completes then we haven't completed a Tape seq.

The logic is that not until that is done can anything else be built.

 

ie:

if the volume sequence for a Tape has not completed (which gets done in BBT 3 (minimum)

by the time price breaks out of BBT 3's rtl then we are still building BBT 3.

 

If the volume seq for a Tape has not completed (which gets done in BBT 3 (minimum)

by the time price breaks out of the Tapes RTL, then what we had up to then (BBT 1 and BBT 2 and the current BBT 3) are not a Tape. They are all just BBT 1.

Hi FT.

 

Why do you mention minimum of three BBT's in a Tape? What causes more BBT's in a Tape? Is it VE? But I do see a Tape ends right on VE bar. Could you define VE that produces an additional pair of BBT's and that does not. If VE. do you modify the slope of the RTL of the Tape? Sometimes I wonder what to do with the extension of old RTL which seems to impact future price movements. [Fill in your questions.]

 

Your clarification will help a lot for me as well as those who are still struggling. Anyone is invited to contribute. Thanks from my heart.

[Scooty 10]

  FilterTip said:

We can end dominance within a dominant lateral.

We cannot end anything within a non dominant lateral.

 

There are definitions for Laterals.

Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals.

Laterals we are permitted to annotate through and

those we are not permitted to annotate through.

 

If we know these definitions then it would merely be a case of applying their logic to any given situation

to determine how to annotate and/or determine what we have and/or are building.

 

hth

Hi. Anyone understand want to share? I have tried very hard to understand Lateral in this TL thread. But I don't see any clear writing on it from Spyder or others. For example, what is a dominance lateral? Is it increasing volume? I read that a Lateral ends with two closes outside the upper or lower boundaries. I also read from some that it ends with IBGS or OB too. Is a lateral a BBT or anything?

 

Again, thanks so much for your contribution. :yes sir:

[FilterTip 10]

  frenchfry said:

Interesting. Thanks.

 

One question... How does volume "promote" a "container" from one level to a higher level? BBT to tape, tape to traverse, traverse to channel, etc. What criteria makes this happen? Change of pace from one level to the next (next two? Three?...) higher level? Or by volume being x-times higher than "y"? Time of day? etc.

 

Hello frenchfry.

 

My understanding is that volume promotes a container by virtue of having

successively higher peaks within that container.

 

This would need to occur post P3 of the container within which we see PA.

ie: we would not view PA until or unless we had already created an X2X

because we need an X2X to which we can relate the PA.

 

I'm not looking at this in terms of a set mathematical formula etc.

Rather, merely what we have on volume.

ie: are there successive higher peaks in 2X than in the X2X of the container.

 

Having promoted up from say a BBT to a Tape and then we get additional higher peak,

logically we may look to view this as promotion to the next fractal (tape to traverse).

 

Perhaps PA is the most context sensitive aspect of all.

 

ie: PA in the last BBT of a Tape would be in the context of both the BBT it is within and

the Tape within which the BBT (that has the PA) is.

 

Looking at the example posted by Heisenberg.

We were able to promote a BBT to a Tape to a Traverse.

 

In this context (of the Oct 2010 Channel Drill) we had built a down Traverse.

We were looking to build a non dom Traverse to a Channel P3.

 

Also from the drill, a BBT from 14.00 (14th Oct) started to build a down Tape,

and got promoted to a Tape without 3 BBT's of equal weight, due to PA at 15.00.

 

Another example of context:

if we've had 2 Tapes and we get PA in the last dominant Tape of a Traverse

then it might not be logical promoting Tape 3 (within which we see the PA)

to a Traverse, if we already have a Traverse.

 

Context is in terms of where a container is in regards to the slower container it is building.

So PA can be relevant to the container it appears within (ie a BBT) and relevant to the slower container its building (ie a Tape).

 

 

 

PA is an acceleration of pace.

Things are moving to fast for us to perhaps see what we would other wise need to see for our OOE's to complete containers.

ie: we may not see rtl's breaks, dominant and non dominant legs, 3 Tapes to build a Traverse, Laterals would not be treated in the same way etc..

 

 

PA is defined. (merely as a visual of succesive higher peaks)

What container PA promotes is by individual case.

The affect of PA (whether to use it or not) is context based.

 

There are many variables involved,

including trying to stay practical and logical.

 

hth

Edited April 28, 2013 by FilterTip

[Stevecs 10]

  Scooty said:

Do you mean

 

HOW BBT (1) is constructed, determines how BBT (2) and BBT (3) also need to be constructed in order for us to know what we have is a Tape.

 

Scooty,

 

My question to FT was that can you apply the above same rule to tapes. It would be like this:

 

HOW tape (1) is constructed, determines how tape (2) and tape (3) also need to be constructed in order for us to know what we have is a traverse.

 

I also should of used traverse instead of channel as the next container up.

luckily FT saw beyond that oversight. and cleared up my question

 

 

hth

Edited April 28, 2013 by Stevecs

[Stevecs 10]

  wilddog said:

nowhere in the post is it about me.

 

Never would that ever happen. Just love it!

[Heisenberg 10]

  frenchfry said:

How do you know that it is a traverse if you don't know why? Just because somebody said so?

 

How many tapes/containers (dominant, non-dominant) do you need in order to create a "traverse"? Are those tapes/containers available in your "traverse" example?

 

That someone happens to be Spydertrader. You know, the person that started this thread.