The Price / Volume Relationship

[dkm 10]

  Spydertrader said:

 

Everyone must learn to differentiate that which actually exists, from that which, they believe exists.

 

- Spydertrader

 

It doesn't matter how many times you post this statement. Unless you are going to explain what you mean, and answer the questions directly to those who are taking the time to post, this thread is going to go the same way that the journals did on ET. Nowhere.

[thalestrader 14]

  jbarnby said:

I've been working on this method for 2.5 yrs. Perhaps others who also have a considerable amount of time invested can chime in here with their ideas. I'm hopeful that through collaborative effort we can learn to see what the market is telling us.

 

That is quite a long time to spend learning a trading method only to feel that you still have not yet mastered it. Have you considered a time "stop loss" after which you would, in spite of the considerable effort and time you have invested in the approach, cut your losses and move on to examine a different approach to determining "what the market is telling us"? I doubt that it is your understanding that is flawed, as from your posts you strike me as an intelligent fellow. At any rate, I wish you my best.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

[Soultrader 12]

Moderated Message:

Please keep things on topic, clean, and professional. Thank you.

[Spydertrader 10]

From Today (07/14/2009) ...

 

[ljyoung 10]

It would seem more appropriate to negate the methodology that Spydertrader and others have espoused and are espousing, by providing concrete evidence, in a separate thread, of its abject, nay wretched, failure. Until such time as something like this is actually done, lamentations about lost and/or confused sheep seem nothing more than that. Might I suggest as the title for such a thread something along the lines of "The Fundamental Flaw and yada yada".

 

As best I can ascertain, the focus of this thread is not to defend the method but rather to continue to educate those who wish to continue to be educated in the niceties of the method, by a practitioner of the method with a particular viewpoint of the method and a particular way of instructing those who wish to be so instructed.

 

lj

[DbPhoenix 42]

  ljyoung said:

It would seem more appropriate to negate the methodology that Spydertrader and others have espoused and are espousing, by providing concrete evidence, in a separate thread, of its abject, nay wretched, failure. Until such time as something like this is actually done, lamentations about lost and/or confused sheep seem nothing more than that. Might I suggest as the title for such a thread something along the lines of "The Fundamental Flaw and yada yada".

 

As best I can ascertain, the focus of this thread is not to defend the method but rather to continue to educate those who wish to continue to be educated in the niceties of the method, by a practitioner of the method with a particular viewpoint of the method and a particular way of instructing those who wish to be so instructed.

 

lj

 

Actually the most appropriate action -- given that nothing is being sold -- is to leave it alone. Novices cannot be saved from themselves, and if one chooses to spend years trying to learn this, that is his choice. At some point, he will either get it, give up, or go broke. But those who post here already have mothers.

 

There are threads here and everywhere that are pure gold. There are also threads here and everywhere that are complete nonsense. But it is up to the individual to decide which is which for himself.

[BlowFish 10]

  thalestrader said:

That is quite a long time to spend learning a trading method only to feel that you still have not yet mastered it. Have you considered a time "stop loss" after which you would, in spite of the considerable effort and time you have invested in the approach, cut your losses and move on to examine a different approach to determining "what the market is telling us"? I doubt that it is your understanding that is flawed, as from your posts you strike me as an intelligent fellow. At any rate, I wish you my best.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

 

This occurred to me.

 

The core concepts of this methodology are based on pretty sound principles imo. Principles that are also relatively straightforward. Some years ago I spent a long time with the material understanding the many layers and nuances that built on these principles. For me I want simplicity and clarity in my charts I found the framework needlessly complex it actually obscured what I needed to see to make trading decisions. For me what it added to the core principles was not worth the extra complexity. I have no doubt that if you drill for years you will get to the stage where this is not the case. I guess it depends what your objectives are. I am interested in methods tht have synergy with my beliefs, I also like a challenge, however to eek out a meagre few points a day I would rather a method that a nine year old could show me (if you catch my drift) .

 

In short I am sure the method is efficacious but it seems clear to me there are far far simpler approaches that are too. There are various hurdles to over come in trading without having to deal with a complex methodology. I also think that the ego has more space to operate with added complexity that's a whole other story but also partly explains the attraction to some methods.

[Mr_black 10]

Lot's of point3's today:haha:

[ljyoung 10]

I agree with db's sentiment about leaving this thread to its own devices but did suggest one of many possible exit strategies for those who feel the need to express their feelings, thoughts, discomforts, etc. about the merit, lack of merit, complexity, etc. of the method.

 

If I might return to the topic at hand then, a question for Spyder. I read what you have so far formulated with respect to what a Lateral, for the purposes of this discussion, is, as follows.

 

A Lateral is an entity which begins, and must begin, as a Lateral Formation, with bars 2 and 3 inside bar 1, though bar 3 is not necessarily inside bar 2. If bars 2 and 3 are not inside bar 1 then we don't have a Lateral Formation.

 

From bar 4 onwards we have, what is called a Lateral. It may continue to be a Lateral Formation (everything inside bar 1). It may form what used to be called a Lateral Movement with a high or low outside the range of bar 1 but with the close inside bar 1. It may have a high or a low outside bar 1 and then close outside bar 1.

 

The first two examples for bar 4 may continue on with a bar 5, 6, ... and will remain a Lateral until there is a bar which closes outside bar 1 which then gives a situation like the third example immediately above.

 

When a bar closes ouside bar 1, and let's say for this example it is bar 4, then if bar 5 closes back inside bar 1, we still have a Lateral. This also used to be called a Lateral Movement. If however bar 5 closes outside bar 1 then the Lateral is terminated at bar 5. The Lateral extends to the bar on which it is terminated.

 

Your "More" pic validates what has been said above except for the first Lateral which is not extended to include the termination pair. Is this a clerical oversight or is it a decision to group the second bar of the terminating pair with the next bar to form a pennant?

 

TIA (Great to have you back.)

 

lj

[Spydertrader 10]

  ljyoung said:

Your "More" pic validates what has been said above except for the first Lateral which is not extended to include the termination pair. Is this a clerical oversight or is it a decision to group the second bar of the terminating pair with the next bar to form a pennant?

 

Your post accurately describes the Lateral Formations as presented in this thread. 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.

 

I did not extend the lateral boundary ending the First Lateral (in the 'more' example) simply to prevent the annotation from 'covering' the next two bar closes (precipitated by the need to 'squish' the chart due to the day's extended range). I wanted everyone to have the ability to see the two closes, rather than, have them somewhat obscured by the Lateral Annotation.

 

HTH

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

This Morning's non-dominant traverse.

 

[romanus 10]

  Spydertrader said:

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.

The 5 min bars built by my data provider differ a little bit from yours. The second close outside of the lateral which begins at 11:50 (7/13/09) forms a 2nd bar of the stitch. The bar which follows the stitch closes back inside the lateral. Would I be correct extending the lateral further as shown by dashed lines in the attached? Thank you.

[ehorn 10]

A premarket Differentiation Drill for those interested (see attached).

 

EDIT:

 

The left is from: 7/14/2009 7:15am - 8:20am

The right is from: 7/15/2009 7:55am - 8:35am

 

All times Eastern

Edited July 15, 2009 by ehorn
attachment

[Spydertrader 10]

  romanus said:

Would I be correct extending the lateral further as shown by dashed lines in the attached?

 

In this specific example, no.

 

- Spydertrader

[ehorn 10]

Some trading notes for the day...

[romanus 10]

  Spydertrader said:

You may define them (to start) in any way you choose. It doesn't matter if you stumble onto the correct answer the first time through, or even if your definition represents some wacked out theory straight out of left field.

My take on lateral differentiation. Compartmentalizing then into:

 

1) the ones that FULLY contain P2 to P3 movement of 'something' and

 

2) the ones, that don't,

 

allows for matching them with correct gaussian of correct thickness.

[Spydertrader 10]

[Spydertrader 10]

[Ezzy 10]

On the Building Annotations, L1 regarding #3 and working through the example there, could you clear something up? On some tapes it isn't clear on which bar the pt2 is. For the 2 bar tape does it matter if price follows a 1 to 2 to 3 movement within the bars, or just use the bar ends and place them where they fall. In the attached clips some of the tapes would have made their pt3 before 2.

 

Thanks, - EZ

PS: Sorry for the small pic, couldn't get it to post larger, will have to click it.

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12224&stc=1&d=1247808475

Edited July 17, 2009 by Ezzy

[Spydertrader 10]

  Ezzy said:

For the 2 bar tape does it matter if price follows a 1 to 2 to 3 movement within the bars, or just use the bar ends and place them where they fall?[/url]

 

Where one place the 'Point Two' of a 2 Bar tape depends on the slope of the RTL. Note the attached example.

 

 

In both of the above examples, we create an RTL, first by connecting the lows of the two bars. By 'cloning' the RTL, and then sliding this 'cloned' line upward until it touches a single line, we arrive at the correct location of our LTL (and of our 'tape' Point Two). While, quite often, the geometry of our trend lines might appear quite odd - compared to our mental 'image' of a tape, traverse or channel - the geometric configuration of our Gaussians remain consistant across each and every fractal.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Edited July 18, 2009 by Spydertrader
spelling error corrected

[Spydertrader 10]

[Spydertrader 10]

[Ezzy 10]

  Spydertrader said:

Where one place the 'Point Two' of a 2 Bar tape depends on the slope of the RTL. Note the attached example.

 

 

In both of the above examples, we create an RTL, first by connecting the lows of the two bars. By 'cloning' the RTL, and then sliding this 'cloned' line upward until it touches a single line, we arrive at the correct location of our LTL (and of our 'tape' Point Two). While, quite often, the geometry of our trend lines might appear quite odd - compared to our mental 'image' of a tape, traverse or channel - the geometric configuration of our Gaussians remain consistant across each and every fractal.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thanks, that clears it up.

[SK0 10]

  Spydertrader said:

In both of the above examples, we create an RTL, first by connecting the lows of the two bars. By 'cloning' the RTL, and then sliding this 'cloned' line upward until it touches a single line, we arrive at the correct location of our LTL (and of our 'tape' Point Two).

 

Spyder, are below pt 2's correct on both cases?

 

[SK0 10]

  Spydertrader said:

 

The gaussian is B2B 2R 2B.

 

Could it be B2B 2R 2R for breaking out to the downside?