The Price / Volume Relationship

[jbarnby 10]

  Spydertrader said:

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

 

What I notice is ONE cycle of R2R before we have increasing non-dominant (black) volume, then a return to increasing red. Because we had just one R2R volume cycle I would conclude that we did not drop to a lower fractal?

[Spydertrader 10]

  dkm said:

:confused:

 

  Neoxx said:

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

 

Neoxx used the phrase "in this example" in his question. You didn't notice the highlighted orange section within the portion of his post I quoted? Since Neoxx chose to discuss this example instead of all examples, he has provided boundaries for his question.

 

Your post applied my answer (to his question) outside those boundaries. In other words, my answer does not apply to all examples - only this one.

 

  dkm said:

:confused:

 

  dkm said:

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

 

  Spydertrader said:

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.

 

You arrived at a specific conclusion. That being, the attachments you posted represent "legitimate alternatives" to what I have stated. I encourage everyone to compare these "legitimate alternatives" against known areas of the market where one knows what the market has provided. In other words, one needs to compare and contrast the "legitimate alternatives" against an area of the market where the same thing occurs and determine if the conclusion of "legitimate alternatives" represents a valid viewpoint or wishful thinking.

 

- Spydertrader

[PointOne 10]

  romanus said:

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.

 

Again the P2 (of the blue channel/traverse/container) is on a VE of the next faster fractal. Where is the FTT (on the next faster fractal) that the tenet demands?

[PointOne 10]

  romanus said:

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.

 

And if you don't look simply at it you see that there is not an FTT shown at the P2. I don't know if that was deliberate or sloppy drawing.

[Spydertrader 10]

  jbarnby said:

What I notice...

 

By quoting Neoxx and highlighting certain areas of the quote, when I used the phrase "anything jump out at you?" I was referring to the orange highlighted section of Neoxx's question in that Neoxx chose to request an answer for this specific example only, and not, all examples.

 

- Spydertrader

[romanus 10]

  PointOne said:

Again the P2 (of the blue channel/traverse/container) is on a VE of the next faster fractal. Where is the FTT (on the next faster fractal) that the tenet demands?

It is right where the medium B2B gaussians end. Apologies for missing the black skinny trendlines.

Edited July 20, 2009 by romanus

[romanus 10]

  PointOne said:

And if you don't look simply at it you see that there is not an FTT shown at the P2. I don't know if that was deliberate or sloppy drawing.

1. All trends ( skinny, medium or thick lines in the picture) end with an FTT.

2. Where skinny trend ends the market arrives at a Point (1, 2 or 3) of a Traverse.

3. The skinny trend ends with FTT.

 

1 + 2 + 3 => A Point (1, 2 or 3) of a traverse ( medium thickness lines) represents an FTT of 'something' of the next smaller fractal (skinny lines).

 

P.S. The thickness refers to both trendlines and gaussians. 'Something' may look like a traverse, however, if it is not (a traverse, based on gaussians), then it must follow that correct annotation of that 'something' must be done with skinny trendlines and gaussians.

[PointOne 10]

  romanus said:

It is right where the medium B2B gaussians end. Apologies for missing the black skinny trendlines.

 

Could you annotate the P2 (of the blue or black channel) and the associated FTT (on the next faster fractal) on your chart, I still can't see it.

 

(From your post above it seems that your P2 is not where the LTL is drawn.)

 

Does anyone else know what I'm asking and why?

[PointOne 10]

  ljyoung said:

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

 

In what way is the example I posted "in error"? The example clearly shows a P2 on a VE of the next faster fractal. No FTT in sight, on the 5 minute resolution.

 

If it's a tenet that there is an FTT of something at points 1, 2 and 3 then I'd expect to see an FTT at every P2. I don't.

 

We've all seen bounces of VEs that BO of the RTL. Then, when we have P3, we draw the LTL through this VE and call it P2.

 

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[ljyoung 10]

  PointOne said:

In what way is the example I posted "in error"? The example clearly shows a P2 on a VE of the next faster fractal. No FTT in sight, on the 5 minute resolution.

 

If it's a tenet that there is an FTT of something at points 1, 2 and 3 then I'd expect to see an FTT at every P2. I don't.

 

We've all seen bounces of VEs that BO of the RTL. Then, when we have P3, we draw the LTL through this VE and call it P2.

 

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

The 'P2' to which you are referring is not a P2 of a 5 min ES traverse as you can verify for yourself by annotating the channels from the prior day. I believe I am correct in saying that when romanus refers to a 'traverse' he is referring to a 5 min ES traverse, what Neoxx has called a 'standard traverse'. Anything faster is a tape or a fat tape or a fasterfractal traverse or a subfractal traverse or a goat or whatever.

 

I know exactly what you are referring to with the "VE" (and "LTL") bounces and BO's but what is being said here, and I believe correctly, is that such bounces and BO's, while tradable, are not bounces and BO's of 5 min ES traverses.

 

lj

[romanus 10]

  PointOne said:

Could you annotate the P2 (of the blue or black channel) and the associated FTT (on the next faster fractal) on your chart, I still can't see it.

Blue trendlines represent a 5 min ES level Traverse with Point Three at 14:20. Olive and black trendlines represent tapes (which have tapes inside it). The blue Point Two at 10:45 is derived from looking at Price only. If 10:45 was also the end of medium level B2B, then the entire 10:45 to 13:25 lateral would have been \R of medium thickness which would cause 13:30 to be the completion and the end of the 5 min ES level sequence. That in turn would mean that a new sequence would begin from that point forward for a down 5 min ES level Traverse. As you can see it didn't happen. Which means something prevents 10:45 from being the end of medium level B2B. That something is the lack of FTT at that point. 10:45 is a VE of the olive tape and 13:30 is an FTT of the black tape, with black tape derived from olive by fanning.

 

Again, the above is based on defining the 'TAPE' and 'TRAVERSE' on both trendlines and gaussians, and not just by looking at price alone.

 

  PointOne said:

(From your post above it seems that your P2 is not where the LTL is drawn.)

You are absolutely correct. P2 is where gaussians say it is.

[PointOne 10]

  romanus said:

You are absolutely correct. P2 is where gaussians say it is.

 

So how do you decide where to place your LTL if it is not through P2?

[romanus 10]

  PointOne said:

So how do you decide where to place your LTL if it is not through P2?

The LTL is still where the price says it is, however the gaussians determine when all sequences reached their completion and where the current trend ends and new begins on the same fractal.

 

[romanus 10]

  ljyoung said:

The 'P2' to which you are referring is not a P2 of a 5 min ES traverse as you can verify for yourself by annotating the channels from the prior day. I believe I am correct in saying that when romanus refers to a 'traverse' he is referring to a 5 min ES traverse, what Neoxx has called a 'standard traverse'. Anything faster is a tape or a fat tape or a fasterfractal traverse or a subfractal traverse or a goat or whatever.

 

I know exactly what you are referring to with the "VE" (and "LTL") bounces and BO's but what is being said here, and I believe correctly, is that such bounces and BO's, while tradable, are not bounces and BO's of 5 min ES traverses.

 

lj

Here's another one, in case you were ever wondering (like me ) what the hell was built that day.:doh:

[PointOne 10]

  romanus said:

The LTL is still where the price says it is, however the gaussians determine when all sequences reached their completion and where the current trend ends and new begins on the same fractal.

 

"Learn to understand what your Gaussians are telling you. By doing so, you'll automatically understand which fractal provided the signal you see, and more importantly, whether or not that particular fractal has completed its sequences."

 

So we agree where P2 is located. Good. It's on a VE.

 

Your tenet states that there is an FTT of something at every point 1, 2 and 3. I dispute that there is always an FTT at P2s. Your example shows a P2 on a VE. A VE cannot be an FTT, by definition.

 

Your tenet, if true, applies on all fractals. But your fanned black traverse has its P2 on the VE of the faster tapes. Where is the FTT of the tape forming the black traverse P2?

[romanus 10]

  PointOne said:

...

Your tenet states that there is an FTT of something at every point 1, 2 and 3. I dispute that there is always an FTT at P2s. Your example shows a P2 on a VE. A VE cannot be an FTT, by definition.

 

The example shows point 2 of the tape on the VE of the tape. (Black trendlines do not represent a 5 min ES level traverse).

 

  PointOne said:

...

Your tenet, if true, applies on all fractals. But your fanned black traverse has its P2 on the VE of the faster tapes. Where is the FTT of the tape forming the black traverse P2?

 

Black trendlines do not represent a 5 min ES level traverse. They represent a tape. A tape which ends with an FTT at 13:30.

 

  PointOne said:

...

Your tenet, if true, applies on all fractals.

Yes it does. Tapes, however, being the smallest unit in terms of fractals may represent a challenge as their point 2 must be an FTT of something finer than a tape, which is not always identifiable on a 5 min chart. Luckily, in our example, dashed teal trendlines exist. See attached.

[Neoxx 10]

I, for one, would be very disappointed if this thread became embroiled in debate, discussion and verbal sparring, for which the other contemporary thread may serve a better arena.

 

We're grateful to have Spyder back, as what may be a 'last gasp' effort to bring everyone up to speed, and, at least in my opinion, the onus should be on promoting maximum utility.

 

I sincerely hope this thread does not become derailed, teeter on the brink, and plummet into the precipice.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Neoxx

[Ezzy 10]

  Spydertrader said:

Neoxx used the phrase "in this example" in his question. You didn't notice the highlighted orange section within the portion of his post I quoted? Since Neoxx chose to discuss this example instead of all examples, he has provided boundaries for his question.

 

Your post applied my answer (to his question) outside those boundaries. In other words, my answer does not apply to all examples - only this one.

 

You arrived at a specific conclusion. That being, the attachments you posted represent "legitimate alternatives" to what I have stated. I encourage everyone to compare these "legitimate alternatives" against known areas of the market where one knows what the market has provided. In other words, one needs to compare and contrast the "legitimate alternatives" against an area of the market where the same thing occurs and determine if the conclusion of "legitimate alternatives" represents a valid viewpoint or wishful thinking.

 

- Spydertrader

Was applying it outside the "boundaries" a reference to the question being only about it being a traverse?

 

Was your answer to Neoxx with or without the gaussians already drawn in, as in that specific example?

 

I walked through the alternatives. Any comments or other things that should have been taken into consideration?

 

Thanks - EZ

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12317&stc=1&d=1248074111

[PointOne 10]

  romanus said:

Luckily, in our example, dashed teal trendlines exist. See attached.

 

OK cool there is an FTT there at P2, in the most accelerated tape. Apologies for not seeing it sooner, serves me right for just eyeballing somebody else's chart.

 

The tenet holds for now. I'll look out for examples to post where there is no discernible FTT at the P2 of a traverse or channel. (As you point out, discerning the FTTs in tapes at their P2s is unlikely on a 5 minute chart alone.)

 

Does anyone else have anything to add?

[PointOne 10]

  Neoxx said:

I, for one, would be very disappointed if this thread became embroiled in debate, discussion and verbal sparring, for which the other contemporary thread may serve a better arena.

 

Sorry Neoxx, I thought I had discovered something about P2s and wanted to share this by testing romanus's assertion, nay tenet. It was a useful discussion for me at least. I shall keep my own counsel from now on.

[Neoxx 10]

  PointOne said:

Sorry Neoxx, I thought I had discovered something about P2s and wanted to share this by testing romanus's assertion, nay tenet. It was a useful discussion for me at least. I shall keep my own counsel from now on.

 

Spyder is a valuable - but finite - resource, and this thread represents a unique opportunity for a lot of people, from those barely out of the starting blocks, to others (myself included) who may have stumbled at certain steps on the path to differentiation.

 

In the brief life of this thread, Spyder has already crystallized a number of important points, clarified certain others, and provided an accessible and up-to-date roadmap for continued progress.

 

I meant nothing personal, and hope I haven't deterred you from continuing to actively participate in this thread.

 

I simply meant it's in our collective best interests to foster an atmosphere conducive to clarity, candour and Spyder's continued input.

[Spydertrader 10]

  Ezzy said:

Was applying it outside the "boundaries" a reference to the question being only about it being a traverse?

 

No.

 

Neoxx asked about this specific example. He wanted to know, (paraphrased), "Whether or not one would still know a traverses existed if a trader had no access to the Price pane." Applying my answer to all Traverses (and not just this specific example) represents an action 'outside the boundaries of the question.'

 

  Ezzy said:

Was your answer to Neoxx with or without the gaussians already drawn in, as in that specific example?

 

The Gaussians existed (were already drawn on the chart snip), prior to, Neoxx posting his question.

 

  Ezzy said:

I walked through the alternatives. Any comments or other things that should have been taken into consideration?

 

The entire point of these discussions represents my attempt to motivate people to learn the process of differentiation. As we noticed recently while observing the discussions between romanus and PointOne, people 'see' things differently (please note: I did not use the terms, 'correctly' or 'incorrectly'). People also interpret words and phrases differently based on their own internal 'filters' which resulted from various life experiences. As such, learning the process of differentiation represents the best way for someone to know the intended meaning of words and phrases equals what the presenter intended, and more importantly, that the recipient understood as accurate and precise.

 

For example,

 

"The YM leads the ES." represents a true and accurate statement. However, "The YM Leads the ES at points of change," represents, not only a true and accruate statement, but one which is more precise.

 

I once made the error of adding a different qualifier to the original assertion. My mental filters decided I had heard the words, "The YM leads the ES all the time," when nobody had inferred nor implied such a thing. Only when I differentiated all possible meanings of the original phrase did I arrive at the correct interpretation.

 

To that end, I started this thread.

 

- Spydertrader

[gucci 10]

Spyder, could you post a few charts with examples of tapes on them, that look like traverses (akin to the recent chart of dkm) and some charts with examles of traverses, that look like those tapes. If you omit Gaussians annotations that would be tremendously conducive for understanding of the fractal jumping. I hope I don't ask too much here, but I guess that would be really helpful.

[ljyoung 10]

  Neoxx said:

Spyder is a valuable - but finite - resource, and this thread represents a unique opportunity for a lot of people, from those barely out of the starting blocks, to others (myself included) who may have stumbled at certain steps on the path to differentiation.

 

In the brief life of this thread, Spyder has already crystallized a number of important points, clarified certain others, and provided an accessible and up-to-date roadmap for continued progress.

 

I meant nothing personal, and hope I haven't deterred you from continuing to actively participate in this thread.

 

I simply meant it's in our collective best interests to foster an atmosphere conducive to clarity, candour and Spyder's continued input.

 

It is great to have an active discussion of the method again. It is entirely possible to have a sharp, clear discussion without resorting to things 'pissy and snippy', such as condescension, ad hominems, misrepresentations, etc. It is most frequently the arrogance of ignorance which gives rise to such manoeuvers and as true discussants of the method we are above all that.

 

Romanus' outpourings of the last few days have been very helpful to me (thank you romanus) and I hope everyone else as well. IMO, one creates an appropriate ego by putting it on the line and and building it anew when necessary. This should not be a big deal for anyone, although it does take a little practice to get used to doing it. The reward is new knowledge. Multiple moments of 'doh' will inevitably lead to a fabled 'aha'. If you experience a few 'haha's' at your own expense on the way to the 'aha', that makes it even better.

 

lj

[Ezzy 10]

  Spydertrader said:

No.

 

Neoxx asked about this specific example. He wanted to know, (paraphrased), "Whether or not one would still know a traverses existed if a trader had no access to the Price pane." Applying my answer to all Traverses (and not just this specific example) represents an action 'outside the boundaries of the question.'

 

The Gaussians existed (were already drawn on the chart snip), prior to, Neoxx posting his question.

So in Neoxx's example with price blocked out and with the gaussians drawn in we should know it was a traverse. On other examples, (of traverses) it might not be so clear.

 

  Quote

The entire point of these discussions represents my attempt to motivate people to learn the process of differentiation. As we noticed recently while observing the discussions between romanus and PointOne, people 'see' things differently (please note: I did not use the terms, 'correctly' or 'incorrectly'). People also interpret words and phrases differently based on their own internal 'filters' which resulted from various life experiences. As such, learning the process of differentiation represents the best way for someone to know the intended meaning of words and phrases equals what the presenter intended, and more importantly, that the recipient understood as accurate and precise.

 

Walking through the other examples was an attempt at differentiation of volume sequences, or reading volume by walking through the other viewpoints. There may be something glaring that's missing (in my analysis of these alternatives) that someone else might see that would help move the process forward. Of course it's always nice to have a standard to compare to.

 

Thanks for clarifying. - EZ