The Price / Volume Relationship

[Ezzy 10]

The gaussian is B2B 2R 2B.

 

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

The sequence is B2B, 2R, 2B. Going pt1-pt2, pt2-pt3, pt3-into the trend. That is a completed sequence (though it can keep going longer: B2B, 2R, 2B, 2R, 2B). After the sequence is complete, only then can you go R2R, 2B, 2R. If you see B2B, 2R, 2R then you're most likely mixing the fractals.

 

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

 

 

I know this was directed to Spyder, but since I'm at it: Yes.

[dkm 10]

....... then you're most likely mixing the fractals.

Ah, the old "fractal" problem. So far, we have been told that our "fractals" are tapes, traverses or channels. My understanding is that each "fractal" has its own "volume sequence" and that the "gaussians must match the tapes".I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

[nkhoi 10]

if it was a 'tape' then it was a traverse-size tape.

[romanus 10]

...the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

IMO if one chooses to operate with three levels of thickness (both trendlines and gaussians) - for tapes, traverses and channels, then it all comes down to the consistent logic behind placing the gaussians. Everyone who has spent time studying Price/Volume relationship can attest to an intimate familiarity with the fact that Points 1, 2 and 3 of the traverses must be formed as FTT's of 'something' of finer fractal (which would be the TAPE if one choses to restrict themselves to three levels of thickness). The above mentioned tenet of the market is well known to everyone (even though some of us require an occasional reminder - myself included;)).

 

Following the logic above, one can be sure that terminating medium level thickness R2R/B2B (reserved for traverses) at anything other than an FTT of 'something' of the finer fractal will result in incorrect gaussian annotations.

 

4/16/09 provides two examples of such logic - 09:55 and 11:50 both form a VE of the tape and as such can not represent Point 2 of the traverse. In second case, I believe terminating medium level thickness B2B at 12:15 would also result in incorrect placement of Point 2 as price is still moving within the lateral from p2 to p3 of 'something'.

[Ezzy 10]

Ah, the old "fractal" problem. So far, we have been told that our "fractals" are tapes, traverses or channels. My understanding is that each "fractal" has its own "volume sequence" and that the "gaussians must match the tapes".I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

 

Yep, the 'ol separating the fractals issue rears it's ugly head. I see it as in part as advanced taping, where the tape is fanned, and what's within it is sub-tape level, or sub-sub tape depending on how many fractals/cycles are within. Quite removed from the basic 2 or 3 bar tapes we start with. I still have trouble with that; when they grow very large, and reasons for growing.

 

I'm more curious if your reliable informant also confirmed the tape starts at 11:30 instead of 11:00, or if there was a reason to restart there? I would have started it at 11:00 and gone from there.

[Spydertrader 10]

if it was a 'tape' then it was a traverse-size tape.

 

The path to determing what something is or is not resides in the Volume Pane.

 

A number of traders have fallen into a very bad habit over the years. They watch the Price Pane of their chart, rather than, spend the bulk of their time focusing on Volume. Let's face it. Price is a lot more fun to watch - especially if Price rockets off in the direction you entered the trade.

 

Traders do this because they all want to see "how they are doing" in a trade. Enter short, and as long as the market keeps making lower lows you are making some very nice coin. After all, making money is the goal, right?

 

Well, no. It really isn't.

 

Sure. We all enjoy banking profits. However, 'Making Money' represents a consequence of the learning process - not the goal.

 

Learning to see when the sequences of Price and Volume have reached completion across all fractals, learning to correctly and consistantly understand the fractal nature of the market, learning to stay on the right side of the market for one's specific trading fractal - these all represent goals.

 

Learn these things and the result of doing so is profits.

 

In other words, the 'mental image' everyone needs to develop, with respect to a tape, traverse or channel, comes not from the Price Pane, but instead resides in the Volume Pane.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[Neoxx 10]

This Morning's non-dominant traverse.

 

 

 

If the price pane were blanked out in this example, should we still know we have a traverse rather than a tape?

 

If we were expecting a Dominant (rather than a non-dominant) traverse, would the same answer hold true?

 

Many thanks,

Neo

[Spydertrader 10]

If the price pane were blanked out in this example, should we still know we have a traverse rather than a tape?

 

Yes.

 

If we were expecting a Dominant (rather than a non-dominant) traverse, would the same answer hold true?

 

Yes.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[PointOne 10]

Everyone who has spent time studying Price/Volume relationship can attest to an intimate familiarity with the fact that Points 1, 2 and 3 of the traverses must be formed as FTT's of 'something' of finer fractal (which would be the TAPE if one choses to restrict themselves to three levels of thickness). The above mentioned tenet of the market is well known to everyone (even though some of us require an occasional reminder - myself included;)).

 

Really? Are Point 2s always FTTs of something? If it's a tenet, it's one I've missed. Which is somewhat galling after 2.5+ years of "this stuff".

 

In my experience, Point 2s regularly form on a VE of the next faster fractal, at a coincident peak in volume. There's even an example posted by Spydertrader a few posts back:

P2 on VE

Edited July 19, 2009 by PointOne
added link

[gucci 10]

 

Following the logic above, one can be sure that terminating medium level thickness R2R/B2B (reserved for traverses) at anything other than an FTT of 'something' of the finer fractal will result in incorrect gaussian annotations.

 

 

Hi romanus,

 

I do not know whether I interpreted the quoted sentence the way it was supposed to be, so bear with me. But there seems to be a tacit implication that FTT represents the ONLY POSSIBLE end effect (i.e. completion) of a sequence on any fractal?

[gucci 10]

Ah, the old "fractal" problem. So far, we have been told that our "fractals" are tapes, traverses or channels. My understanding is that each "fractal" has its own "volume sequence" and that the "gaussians must match the tapes".I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

 

 

Spyder, would you please take the peculiarities of this specific "tape" apart if this indeed is one? TIA.

Edited July 19, 2009 by gucci
Attachment

[dkm 10]

If the price pane were blanked out in this example, should we still know we have a traverse rather than a tape?

Neo

 

We are told that the gaussians MUST match our tapes. If the price pane is blanked out, how can we possibly know that our gaussians are correct?

 

With no reference to price, the attached examples would seem legitimate alternatives.

[jbarnby 10]

I'm more curious if your reliable informant also confirmed the tape starts at 11:30 instead of 11:00, or if there was a reason to restart there? I would have started it at 11:00 and gone from there.

 

Yes, I'm quite curious about this as well...

[Neoxx 10]

I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

 

I suspect the 11:50-12:50 lateral may have had something to do with that...

[ljyoung 10]

Really? Are Point 2s always FTTs of something? If it's a tenet, it's one I've missed. Which is somewhat galling after 2.5+ years of "this stuff".

 

In my experience, Point 2s regularly form on a VE of the next faster fractal, at a coincident peak in volume. There's even an example posted by Spydertrader a few posts back:

P2 on VE

 

As we all know neither romanus nor PointOne are slouches but the example P1 selected to disprove romanus' contention is in error, IMO. This is not to say that either trader is right or wrong. It would help if P1 found a better example to support his notion.

 

lj

[romanus 10]

... There's even an example posted by Spydertrader a few posts back:

P2 on VE

See attached. B2B medium level thickness gaussians end at an FTT of the blue accel up tape.

[romanus 10]

Hi romanus,

 

I do not know whether I interpreted the quoted sentence the way it was supposed to be, so bear with me. But there seems to be a tacit implication that FTT represents the ONLY POSSIBLE end effect (i.e. completion) of a sequence on any fractal?

It's not an implication, it's a reality - the basic market tenet.

[Spydertrader 10]

We are told that the gaussians MUST match our tapes. If the price pane is blanked out, how can we possibly know that our gaussians are correct?

 

The correct attribution should read, "The Gaussians must match the trend lines."

 

I'm confident many have read a post (or ten) by Jack clearly stating how one could almost trade by simply focusing on Volume alone. I'd even hazard a guess than more than a few people could post a link to one (or several) example(s) of such posts. Now, let's look at the exact question posted by Neoxx ...

 

If the price pane were blanked out in this example, should we still know we have a traverse rather than a tape?

 

Anything jump out at you in particular? If so, what might one conclude?

 

With no reference to price, the attached examples would seem legitimate alternatives.

 

Everything is not always what it appears to be (at first glance).

 

I encourage everyone to look at what appear to be "legitimate alternatives" in this case, and by doing so, test said conclusions against known circumstances in an effort to determine whether or not the statement represents a valid conclusion.

 

- Spydertrader

[romanus 10]

... This is not to say that either trader is right or wrong.

lj

Attached is yet another example of the same principles at work - placing the end of traverse level B2B gaussians (medium level thickness) at any point in time prior to 13:30 would not result in correct identification of the traverse.

[Spydertrader 10]

Would you please take the peculiarities of this specific "tape" apart if this indeed is one?

 

One begins with the knowledge that all markets exist on a fractal basis. By understanding the correct definition (here is another for those with a more visual orientation) of the word 'fractal' (and applying said understanding onto the market itself) one can then understand how no anomalies, exceptions or peculiarities can exist - ever.

 

- Spydertrader

[romanus 10]

Really? Are Point 2s always FTTs of something?

One can go no further then post #4 of this thread : http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f34/price-volume-relationship-6320.html#post70030 and simply look at the picture attached there. For convinience I am posting the picture again.

[gucci 10]

It's not an implication, it's a reality - the basic market tenet.

 

Sorry for the lines at the first tape (on the atmost left part of the attachment) they are not quite parallel, but still helpful to demonstrate what I mean. I couldn't see an FTT there but IBGS?

[innersky 10]

Ah, the old "fractal" problem. So far, we have been told that our "fractals" are tapes, traverses or channels. My understanding is that each "fractal" has its own "volume sequence" and that the "gaussians must match the tapes".I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

 

So are you saying that anything below a traverse is by definition a tape?

 

--

innersky

[romanus 10]

Sorry for the lines at the first tape (on the atmost left part of the attachment) they are not quite parallel, but still helpful to demonstrate what I mean. I couldn't see an FTT there but IBGS?

Please note the skinny olive and teal trendlines in the attached.

Edited July 19, 2009 by romanus

[dkm 10]

Now, let's look at the exact question posted by Neoxx ...

 

Anything jump out at you in particular? If so, what might one conclude?

- Spydertrader

:confused:

 

 

Everything is not always what it appears to be (at first glance).

 

I encourage everyone to look at what appear to be "legitimate alternatives" in this case, and by doing so, test said conclusions against known circumstances in an effort to determine whether or not the statement represents a valid conclusion.

 

- Spydertrader

:confused: