The Price / Volume Relationship

[plantrader 10]

Thank you for this.

 

Complex = a container (BBT) within which we are able to annotate non dominant trend lines as per the 10 x 2 bar cases.

 

Non dom trend lines in an up BBT =

FBP, EH, SYM, and also IBGS and OB.

 

I don't understand how to annotate a non dominant trend line in the case of an ibgs (say in up BBT), which makes a higher high and higher low relative to the previous bar. It seems similar to the FTP. Spyder made no reference to bar open and closing prices in the 2 bar cases.

 

If the two bars are translating (up in this case), you can't draw a non dom TL even if the bar is an ibgs.

 

He must've been referencing something like this: if we're in an up move, then a bar makes a "lower low" but it's close is such that it's an ibgs long (which means technically it's a mode up/black bar)...we could still draw a non dom TL to it.

 

Edit: Or an upwards translating bar that's an ibgs short and happens to intersect an existing up TL. Since the ibgs bar's mode is red/down it'd be a valid potential non dom TL. This happens a lot, and a lot FTT bars fit such a description. I'd show this but am not at my PC right now.

 

My question is, to fit that definition of "complex" do we have to have a 123ftt in the non dom direction? Or simply the possibility of drawing a non dom TL even if not a valid container (no ftt) is enough to make it complex?

Edited May 24, 2015 by plantrader

[203NG 10]

What is the question? Post a snipet with annotation confusion.

 

Hi gucci,

 

Thanks for your efforts.

 

Here is a snippet of one of your charts. (Excuse the manual annotations).

 

The purple container (I) consists of three, "equal weight" bbt tapes.

 

The next container is brown.

 

1. My first confusion is that the point 2 on the price pane does not match the point 2 on the volume gaussian. I thought that gaussians should match trend lines.

 

2. My second confusion is that the movement of price to point 2 (corresponding to the gaussian) is a "complex bbt". It contains a sym pennant corresponding to the volume trough. However the movement for price from this point 2 to point 3 and then from point 3 to the end are simple bbt's. So I don't understand how the concept of equal weight containers applies.

[203NG 10]

Add and explain the gaussians.

 

Here is my effort in adding Gaussians.

Edited May 24, 2015 by 203NG

[gucci 10]

Hi gucci,

 

Thanks for your efforts.

 

Here is a snippet of one of your charts. (Excuse the manual annotations).

 

The purple container (I) consists of three, "equal weight" bbt tapes.

 

The next container is brown.

 

1. My first confusion is that the point 2 on the price pane does not match the point 2 on the volume gaussian. I thought that gaussians should match trend lines.

 

2. My second confusion is that the movement of price to point 2 (corresponding to the gaussian) is a "complex bbt". It contains a sym pennant corresponding to the volume trough. However the movement for price from this point 2 to point 3 and then from point 3 to the end are simple bbt's. So I don't understand how the concept of equal weight containers applies.

 

To your first confusion... See attached. On 5 min chart you see an IBGS. On two min chart you see where the trend line should be placed.Somehing transpired within the bar itself. It is called an IBGS for a reason. The increasing volume after point three is a must.

 

I do not understand your second confusion and question.Try to rephrase.

[gucci 10]

Hi gucci,

 

 

 

2. My second confusion is that the movement of price to point 2 (corresponding to the gaussian) is a "complex bbt". It contains a sym pennant corresponding to the volume trough. However the movement for price from this point 2 to point 3 and then from point 3 to the end are simple bbt's. So I don't understand how the concept of equal weight containers applies.

 

I guess I understand. Just to be sure try to rephrase, than I can answer.

[FilterTip 10]

Thank you for this.

 

Complex = a container (BBT) within which we are able to annotate non dominant trend lines as per the 10 x 2 bar cases.

 

Non dom trend lines in an up BBT =

FBP, EH, SYM, and also IBGS and OB.

 

I don't understand how to annotate a non dominant trend line in the case of an ibgs (say in up BBT), which makes a higher high and higher low relative to the previous bar. It seems similar to the FTP. Spyder made no reference to bar open and closing prices in the 2 bar cases.

 

You're correct in that we can't annotate a non dom trend line to an IBGS that, in an uptrend, has made a HH and HL.

 

To clarify:

Complex = a container (BBT) within which we are able to annotate non dominant trend lines as per the 10 x 2 bar cases.

 

Non dom trend lines in an up BBT =

FBP, EH, SYM, and also down Stitch and down translating bar and OB.

 

An IBGS in of itself makes a BBT Complex even if we can't annotate non dom trend lines to it.

Please see post# 4016 where "bar 3" is referenced and shows that the IBGS (in of itself) made the BBT Complex prior to the EH.

 

An IBGS, and OB as the first and/or last bar of a container, do not make the container Complex.

If they occured, they would need to be "within" the container, as in between the first and last bars.

 

So if you wanted to annotate faster gaussians within a BBT, you would have the 2y gaussian to an IBGS in the same way as you would have a 2y leg to the other non dom formations, non dom translating bar and OB listed above.

 

Hope that's clearer and apologies for any confusion.

Edited May 25, 2015 by FilterTip

[FilterTip 10]

 

My question is, to fit that definition of "complex" do we have to have a 123ftt in the non dom direction? Or simply the possibility of drawing a non dom TL even if not a valid container (no ftt) is enough to make it complex?

 

No we don't need the non dom price formation (via the cases listed previously and the explination re: IBGS) to have a set of trend lines (rtl and ltl) wih p1/p2/p3/ftt (OOE's).

 

The non dom is making the BBT Complex so is within the BBT.

That non dom would be at a faster level than the BBT it's within so we don;'t need to actually annotate it on price. On vol we can, if we wanted to, assign a 2y to it.

 

Gaussians match our trend lines.

Either the x2x2y2x or X2X gaussians are both within BBT 1.

A BBT 1 has an x2x2y2x only because it's Complex.

A BBT 1 has an X2X only because it's Simple

 

If our BBT 1 gets us to Tape P2 via a faster x2x2y2x, thats only because we've had non dom within the BBT 1 (making it Complex) to which we can annotate the 2y leg of an x2x2y2x.

If our BBT 1 is Simple, then that's the same as getting to a Tape P2 via only an X2X.

(We have no non dom for a 2y)

 

Either way it doesn't matter because BBT 1 is getting us to Tape P2.

All that matters is that we know this.

 

Hope that helps.

Edited May 25, 2015 by FilterTip

[203NG 10]

 

So if you wanted to annotate faster gaussians within a BBT, you would have the 2y gaussian to an IBGS in the same way as you would have a 2y leg to the other non dom formations, non dom translating bar and OB listed above.

 

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

The above being the case with can't you include a FTP in your non dom formations (for an up trend) , as there could be only a one tick difference between a FTP, and an IBGS or a sym pennant?

[gucci 10]

Find missing and important trendlines. Funny day by the way.

[FilterTip 10]

Thank you for your reply.

You're welcome

The above being the case with can't you include a FTP in your non dom formations (for an up trend) , as there could be only a one tick difference between a FTP, and an IBGS or a sym pennant?

That doesn't seem logical imo.

If a one tick difference didn't matter then we'd have no reason to distinguish between formations and/or whether some were dom or non dom.

Neither, I would imagine, would Spyder have brought them to our attention (?) !

[203NG 10]

Hi Gucci,

 

When studying the chart under discussion, in real time I would have probably taken the (15:35) IBGS on increasing volume, which is also a lateral BO/FBO, as a major signal for change. (This would have been too early as it turns out).

 

Then I thought of this previous quote of yours in response to a post.

 

"The market moved to its point 2 (first dominant leg) creating the faster fractal thing underway. Such being the case you should anticipate the second dominant leg (2R) being created the similar way. So annotating REAL TIME at 10:25 (your provisional point 3)you anticipate the second dominant leg. This second dominant leg should be created by a faster fractal thing. So there is no way you should look for a signal of change at 10:30-10:40 area. Now try to work forward from here using the same logic in conjunction with volume sequences and you will also understand why we do not have a faster fractal thing annotated from 10:25 onward. (see the chart with the clue)"

 

Would a similar argument apply here. The 15:35 IBGS cannot be a signal for change because the faster fractal sequence of the second dominant leg (2R) has not completed yet. We can only start looking for a signal for change after the 15:45 bar (the faster fractal sequence for the second dominant leg of the pink container is now complete), and that signal for change comes on the very next bar in the form of another increasing volume ibgs/ob?

 

I hope I am on the right track.

 

Hi Gucci,

 

This is an old quote.

 

Is the shape of the containers i.e "equal weight" important? If your first dominant movement (R2R) in this case consists of a down tape, then up tape and then down tape, must the third dominant movement (2R) have the same shape.

 

I suspect this is not the case and that I misunderstood.

 

This is not the case in the brown container referenced in my previous post, (the B2B has a SYM pennant, but the 2B, has no non dom formation, at least none that is visible on the 5 minute time frame).

[gucci 10]

Hi Gucci,

 

This is an old quote.

 

Is the shape of the containers i.e "equal weight" important? If your first dominant movement (R2R) in this case consists of a down tape, then up tape and then down tape, must the third dominant movement (2R) have the same shape.

 

I suspect this is not the case and that I misunderstood.

 

This is not the case in the brown container referenced in my previous post, (the B2B has a SYM pennant, but the 2B, has no non dom formation, at least none that is visible on the 5 minute time frame).

 

You are on the right track. Compare the down tape in your first referenced post to the up tape in your last post. Good job.

[203NG 10]

You're welcome

 

That doesn't seem logical imo.

If a one tick difference didn't matter then we'd have no reason to distinguish between formations and/or whether some were dom or non dom.

Neither, I would imagine, would Spyder have brought them to our attention (?) !

 

I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

 

Not that it makes much difference, the market will decide.

 

Our charts are a graphical record of transactions by thousands of buyers and sellers, divided (arbitrarily) in 5 minute periods. If one of those buyers or sellers transacted one second later or earlier, it might effect the shape of our formation, but would not fundamentally alter the overall market situation. So for me it does appear logical to place the FTP with the others. Maybe we should look out for examples in the market.

[gucci 10]

I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

 

Not that it makes much difference, the market will decide.

 

Our charts are a graphical record of transactions by thousands of buyers and sellers, divided (arbitrarily) in 5 minute periods. If one of those buyers or sellers transacted one second later or earlier, it might effect the shape of our formation, but would not fundamentally alter the overall market situation. So for me it does appear logical to place the FTP with the others. Maybe we should look out for examples in the market.

 

Interesting and prolific discussion. May I ask some questions? What is a stall? And what is a FTP?

[Mandelbrot 10]

Thank you for your reply.

 

The above being the case with can't you include a FTP in your non dom formations (for an up trend) , as there could be only a one tick difference between a FTP, and an IBGS or a sym pennant?

 

By definition an internal is sub-fractal. I think you are heading down a very dangerous road. Sure there is 1 tick difference. In volume that tick may have been 1 contract or 1000+ contracts. To differentiate when a FTP is a sym vs an IBGS is frivolous exercise.

 

Keep your eye on the ball regarding CONTEXT and ORDER OF EVENTS.

 

HTH

[203NG 10]

Interesting and prolific discussion. May I ask some questions? What is a stall? And what is a FTP?

 

I am not a profitable trader of this method, and I don't wish to clutter up this thread with "frivolity".

 

Any post is done in the spirit of seeking understanding.

 

I also wish to say that I am pleased that Gucci's efforts have bought a bit of life back to a long dormant thread. I think most people in my position have/had just given up. Now, with somebody who has been through similar struggles, and yet who has finally made it (work), and who is willing to try and help others, there is the thought of maybe just giving it one more try, maybe some more pennies will drop. (Excuse the pun).

 

Pardon me if a think aloud, what follows might be obvious, but I am trying to clarify things in my own mind.

 

Price is a continuous variable. The most accurate graphical representation of the market, (leaving volume aside for the moment), would be a continuous line graph, with time on the horizontal axis and price on the vertical. It is not practical to have the time measured in seconds (say), but if we did we would get a very long graph, showing all the tiny up and down variations/waves in price over the period. So price is like a video.

 

We have chosen to use a 5 minute OHLC bar graph. This like a series on photographs taken at 5 minute intervals from the video. I think that perhaps we should not mistake the photo for the substance which is the video, and to bear in mind that when we look at the photos we are getting a simplified view of the video.

 

That being said:

 

In a uptrend

 

FBP – two bar formation, with second bar having an equal high and a higher low. Price fails to advance in the trend for a least 5 minutes, some movement in the opposite direction of the trend (down)

 

EH – two bar formation, with second bar having an equal high and equal low. Price fails to advance in the trend for at least 5 minutes, some movement in the opposite direction of the trend (down)

 

SYM – two bar formation, with second bar having a lower high and a higher low. Price fails to advance in the trend for a least 5 minutes, some movement in the opposite direction of the trend (down)

 

FBP – two bar formation, with second bar having a lower high and equal low. Price fails to advance in the trend for at least 5 minutes, some movement in the opposite direction of the trend (down)

 

IBGS (down) – two bar formation, with the second bar having a higher high and higher a low (if not an outside bar), with closing price lower than opening price. Price does advance in the trend, but the net result of price movement is that price is lower than it was 5 minutes before, therefore, some movement in the opposite direction of the trend.

 

I agree that for an FBP, the movement in the opposite direction of the trend (down), maybe a bit more pronounced than in the case of a FTP, but essentially you have a 5 minute period where price does not advance in the direction of the trend (Up). There is downward movement in price. Thinking in terms of Wyckoff, who I have been reading, this is either due to a reduction in buying activity, or an increase in selling activity.

 

A stall (from Jack)

 

Stalls are longer hitches and the volatility may not be less than prior bars. Picture it as a

definite pause and dwell period that occurs not too close to the left fractal channel line.

Volume will oscillate somewhat by flagging and then refreshing and flagging again.

 

Hitch

As dominant traverses proceed the price change there is, at first, an almost continuous

advance. Therefore, from bar to bar, the offsets and the bar length repeat one after

another. Progress can soften after a period of time and it shows up as a momentary one

or two bar repeat. Repeat means that consecutive nearly identical bars show up. The

bars often do not have the volatility of the prior advancing bars. Volume will flag

somewhat preceding this phenomena. Then the price resumes its prior advance. The

market has momentarily caught its breath, so to speak.

[stepan7 10]

Folks, it always pays to read original source. Volumes 3, 4 and 5

 

Stepan

spyfut5.pdf

spyfut4.pdf

spyfut3.pdf

Edited May 27, 2015 by stepan7

[stepan7 10]

Folks, it always pays to read original source. Volume 1.

 

Stepan

spyfut1.part1.rar

spyfut1.part2.rar

[stepan7 10]

Folks, it always pays to read original source. Volume 2.

 

Stepan

spyfut2.part1.rar

spyfut2.part2.rar

[SK0 10]

A stall (from Jack)

 

Stalls are longer hitches and the volatility may not be less than prior bars. Picture it as a

definite pause and dwell period that occurs not too close to the left fractal channel line.

Volume will oscillate somewhat by flagging and then refreshing and flagging again.

 

Hitch

As dominant traverses proceed the price change there is, at first, an almost continuous

advance. Therefore, from bar to bar, the offsets and the bar length repeat one after

another. Progress can soften after a period of time and it shows up as a momentary one

or two bar repeat. Repeat means that consecutive nearly identical bars show up. The

bars often do not have the volatility of the prior advancing bars. Volume will flag

somewhat preceding this phenomena. Then the price resumes its prior advance. The

market has momentarily caught its breath, so to speak.

 

Could you post a snippet of Jack's blackboard sketches of Hitch, Stall and Dip that somebody uploaded on ET many years ago? Thanks.

[Mandelbrot 10]

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

[river 10]

Could you post a snippet of Jack's blackboard sketches of Hitch, Stall and Dip that somebody uploaded on ET many years ago? Thanks.

 

I've attached a picture for you. The sketches can also be found on the third to last page of Volume 1 which stephan just posted a couple of days ago.

 

-river

[cnms2 10]

Could you post a snippet of Jack's blackboard sketches of Hitch, Stall and Dip that somebody uploaded on ET many years ago? Thanks.

This was posted by spydertrader on Feb 7, 2007.

[SK0 10]

Thanks 203NG, river, cnms2.

 

I have over the years reviewed how Jack described these internal trend formations (hitch, dip, stall) occurring in dominant tape-like price movement in his Channels for Building Wealth document and a few very old posts.

 

Do you consider they might occur other than in pennant patterns or lateral formations in a price movement? I mean in translation case.

[nkhoi 10]

I see most of PV participants have migrated here. This is reading Price Volume bar by bar indicator.

I include 2 similar Ninja PV indicators. One needs Gom indicator so that it can run on history Bid and Ask. One run real time only, it will lose bid/ask data if you hit refresh the chart. The real time indicator is posted here only.

Note: remember to change extension cs.txt back to cs only,

Tip: expand the indicator to see hash marks better.

ps.Indicator that uses Gom package works better.

 

Download Basic Gom package here

http://www.ninjatrader.com/support/forum/showthread.php?t=23283

BidAskPV.zip

GomBidAskPVbyJackH.cs.txt

Edited May 29, 2015 by nkhoi