Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Recommended Posts

Regarding fractals...

You can find this post on the first page of this thread...

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f34/price-volume-relationship-6320.html#post70030

 

  Spydertrader said:
Trend Lines

 

Accurately drawn trend lines in a chart Price Pane represent ‘containers’ of trend on the three trading fractals. We represent the fastest trading fractal using skinny lines (described as ‘tapes’) which, in turn, build the next slower fractal (represented by ‘medium’ weight lines) – known as a Traverse. These Medium fast trends (Traverses) build the slowest fractal (thick line weight) known as a ‘channel.’

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=11925&stc=1&d=1246812876

 

To Be Continued ...

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for Spyder (or as always, anyone else who believes they know the answer).

 

If what romanus has discerned is correct (and IMO, it is), that for 5 min ES players, there must be FTT's at points 1, 2, and 3, then is it likewise correct to say that all of the FTT's, at points 1, 2, and 3, must demonstrate a FTT of ALL of the components of 'the tape' associated with each point?

 

What I mean by ALL of the components is this.

 

For the 5 min ES traverse trader, the fastest trading fractal, on the ES 5 min fixed time fractal, is the 2 bar tape. Expert level traders can do the 'intrabar' thingy but the traverse trader should by and large leave that stuff alone, for a later time, if you will. As we all know there are trading fractals (aka 'goats' and such) which lie 'between' the 2 bar tape and the traverse. For the purposes of this discussion, you have simplified matters by gathering all of these non-traverse fractals into a single fractal which is called 'the tape'.

 

Thus when one turns a corner at points 1, 2, and 3, it seems logical that if the trader has correctly mapped the path to the point, then there must be a FTT of the entire tape and if there isn't an FTT of the entire tape then you don't have, as yet, a point 1, 2, or 3. So if you have a FTT of the 2 bar tape but don't have a FTT of one of the 'goats', then you have to wait until you do have a FTT of the 2 bar tape and all of the goats.

 

Is this 'all or none' Boolean kind of thing correct?

 

lj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spyder,

 

You have mentioned many times we need to place focus in the volume.

 

It is those pace lines that probably play a big role in the importance of point 1 and point 3 in volume

Those points will be seen as the valleys (troughs ) in volume and the pace levels will be most likely different when a b2b or r2r forms, and if we were to compare that pace level to when a point 3 valley forms.

 

If so, after point 1 valley forms we should look for a change in pace for the point 3 valley. One completed, then look for a pace change from a point 3 valley to the next trough at point of change.

 

So should we be placing focus on the valleys and their pace levels ( or pace increases ) at points 1 and points 3 ?

Edited by TIKITRADER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TIKITRADER said:

So should we be placing focus on the valleys and their pace levels ( or pace increases ) at points 1 and points 3 ?

 

While noting the various Pace changes might help someone to see what I have described in this thread, plenty of other, more critical, information exists, other than, observing Pace transitioning across pink, red, blue and green lines.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
While noting the various Pace changes might help someone to see what I have described in this thread, plenty of other, more critical, information exists, other than, observing Pace transitioning across pink, red, blue and green lines.

 

- Spydertrader

 

 

In this method volume is used a number of ways.

 

Spyder, if I have missed something here would you please inform me.

 

 

1 ) Volume per 5 minute bar

 

2) Increasing volume compared to last 5 minute bar

 

2) Decreasing volume compared to last 5 minute bar

 

4) Increasing volume throughout a fractal

 

5) Decreasing volume throught a fractal

 

6) Increasing - decreasing - increasing volume to build a fractal

 

7) Pace Levels

 

8) Pace acceleration

 

9) Pace deceleration

 

9) Acceleration - deceleration - acceleration to build a fractal

 

10) Dry up pace volume

 

11) Medium pace volume

 

12) Fast pace volume

 

13) Extreme pace volume

 

14) Peak volume

 

15) Peaks

 

16 ) Troughs

 

17) Multiple fractal build

 

18) Gaussian

 

19) Intra bar Gaussian shift

 

20) B2B

 

21) R2R

 

22) B2R

 

23) R2B

 

24) B2B 2R 2B

 

25) R2R 2B 2R

 

26) Pro rata volume

 

27) 81 bars of - 5 minute volume

 

28) Volume relation to price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TIKITRADER said:

28)

 

That's some list you have there.

 

However, I encourage everyone to keep this process as simple as possible.

 

For example, those who focus making decisions and taking action at the end of a bar, have no need for Pro-Rata Volume (a calculation which anticipates future, at end of bar, Volume as a function Current Volume [now]). One observes PRV while learning to transition from 'taking action' at end of bar to taking action intra-bar.

 

Some other things (on your list) give the appearance of redundancy.

 

In other words, no need to focus on a laundry list of items.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ljyoung said:
For the purposes of this discussion, you have simplified matters by gathering all of these non-traverse fractals into a single fractal which is called 'the tape'.

 

One cannot 'gather together' that which does not exist.

 

While certainly, additional trading fractals (beyond skinny, medium and thick) do exist, they reside not 'in between' skinny and medium, but rather, below (or faster than) a skinny line.

 

As a result, we rarely see them. However, when we do see these faster (than skinny line) fractals, they operate in the exact same fashion as all other fractals (skinny, medium and thick) which we see each and every day.

 

While the remainder of your question provides logical points which one can observe as correct or incorrect - simply by viewing a thoroughly annotated chart, the question leaves out one very important point.

 

What role (if any) does 'context' play in the application of your conclusion?

 

One can, quite easily, find themselves far 'off track' simply by applying the correct rule to the in-correct context. For this very reason, I have recommended everyone learn to differentiate the 'subtle differences' which develop time after time.

 

To that end, I plan to post another differentiation drill later this weekend.

 

While you may feel that I have failed to answer your question sufficiently, if you read my response closely, you should see that I have provided you valuable direction.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
One cannot 'gather together' that which does not exist.

 

While certainly, additional trading fractals (beyond skinny, medium and thick) do exist, they reside not 'in between' skinny and medium, but rather, below (or faster than) a skinny line.

 

As a result, we rarely see them. However, when we do see these faster (than skinny line) fractals, they operate in the exact same fashion as all other fractals (skinny, medium and thick) which we see each and every day.

 

While the remainder of your question provides logical points which one can observe as correct or incorrect - simply by viewing a thoroughly annotated chart, the question leaves out one very important point.

 

What role (if any) does 'context' play in the application of your conclusion?

 

One can, quite easily, find themselves far 'off track' simply by applying the correct rule to the in-correct context. For this very reason, I have recommended everyone learn to differentiate the 'subtle differences' which develop time after time.

 

To that end, I plan to post another differentiation drill later this weekend.

 

While you may feel that I have failed to answer your question sufficiently, if you read my response closely, you should see that I have provided you valuable direction.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you for your thoughts. You answered my question with sufficiency.

 

The choice of the phrase 'in between' was reached after some consideration and is best viewed as a functional description of what I see. IMO, the basic unit of 'PV currency', if you will, for the traverse trader is the 2 bar tape which is the most simple type of what you call a 'skinny fractal'.

 

There is a large component of context present in what I discussed, though it may either be unapparent or appear to be different from other sorts of context. The basic principles of the PV relationship are adhered to.

 

In passing let it be said that it is very nice indeed to have a pleasant portal which permits a frequently meaningful exchange of ideas about the method. The periodic purveyors of maltransference are voided with logical thought not howling and screaming or worse, magical thinking.

 

Catch you later.

 

lj

Edited by ljyoung
phrase change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawing tapes to translating bars should rarely cause anyone difficulty. After all, connecting higher lows and higher highs (or lower highs and lower lows) represents the easiest of all tapes to draw. However, the majority of our trading day contains bars which do not show translation. We've already discussed some of these examples (Stitch & Lateral Formations), but what about the other internals?

 

Perhaps, a bit of differentiation with respect to Pennants can provide some clarity. The quickest bit of differentiation results from what type of Pennant the market has created.

 

Flat Top Pennant (FTP)

Flat Bottom Pennant (FBP)

Symmetrical Pennant (Sym)

 

(Examples Attached)

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=12444&stc=1&d=1248545051

 

What else might differentiate these three - from each other and from the rest of the market?

 

Grab a clean copy of Friday's 5 minute ES chart, and begin to look for subtle differences - again, between the three examples and between all three examples and the rest of the market day.

 

I'll start you off with one ...

 

Two of the three Pennants already have a 'built in' way to draw a trend line. The third example requires another bar in order to determine which trend line presents a correct view of the market.

 

Group the various differences together in order to form a consistant view (based on context), and apply that view onto all congruent contexts.

 

Take some time to focus on what develops after the market creates these pennants.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

pennants.JPG.186b842f7f9a18b21510ae9234244ddd.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
What else might differentiate these three - from each other and from the rest of the market?

 

Grab a clean copy of Friday's 5 minute ES chart, and begin to look for subtle differences - again, between the three examples and between all three examples and the rest of the market day.

 

 

Take some time to focus on what develops after the market creates these pennants.

 

I took the charts for Thursday and Friday and removed all annotations. I decided to begin with FBP and FTP formations. I highlighted all FBP/FTP's for those two days. After review, here are some early findings.

 

In an uptrend, FTP's usually BO with increasing volume in the direction of the trend, thus presenting continuation in the direction of the tape created by the FTP. Same applies for FBP in a downtrend.

 

In an uptrend, FTP's which break to the downside seem to indicate a change in mode, but volume on the BO bar is telling. If the BO bar is decreasing volume, it's usually a minor retrace or the beginning of a lateral formation. A BO to the downside on increasing volume seems to suggest a shift in trend. The same principle applies to FBP's in a downtrend.

 

I also noted FTT's following FBP/FTP on a couple of occasions, which seemed to have occurred on higher (peaking) volume.

 

As stated, these are early finding, and I hope I'm approaching this correctly. Tomorrow I plan to add SYM pennants to the review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firday's ES chart. All Ftp, Fbp and Sym pennants labeled. Sym pennants marked.

Sym pennants can be contained within laterals.

Also Sym pennants can be found at points of change from dominance and non dominance.

 

volume removed to focus on the price formations

5aa70f070dda2_symftpfbp.thumb.png.188e59b5e5a411286b004e514bfd8c18.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  romanus said:
Here's another one, in case you were ever wondering (like me :)) what the hell was built that day.:doh:

 

Hi romanus,

No offense here. It's very suspecious that the pink trendlines (starts at the 3rd bar) represent ES 5 min traverse. Based on your gaussians, real point 3 occured on the RTL of a tape. Could you clarify it? TIA

5aa70f07186af_ES4-23-2009romanus.thumb.gif.527a88828b2fbaf1faa8cf59104d8c14.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing with the pennant drill, my observations are similar to Tikitrader's in that SYM pennants are often located where the market is transitioning from non-dom to dom...or 2-3 of some goat. I tried to differentiate SYM pennants by volume, noting that usually the second (internal) bar of the pennants have decreasing volume when compared to the first bar. One example I found which is different is 1545 on Friday. The 1545 pennant has increasing volume on the second (internal) bar of the pennant, which is interesting because at this point the market returned to the dominant trending direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  NYCMB said:
I have Dotted, Orange and Light green Lateral Formations. Does any of them end on wrong bar?

 

You should arrive at the answer you seek by applying the answers in this post onto your annotated chart snippet.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:

 

What else might differentiate these three - from each other and from the rest of the market?

- Spydertrader

 

This is too vague.

 

  Spydertrader said:

Group the various differences together in order to form a consistant view (based on context), and apply that view onto all congruent contexts.

- Spydertrader

Since "context" has never been defined, this is also too vague.

 

  Spydertrader said:

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

NR

 

Comparison attached

ftp differentiation.xlsFetching info...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  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.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Will you give a graphic example of a "flaw" please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How embarrassing! I feel like a kindergartner attending a college class. Is the reduction in vol the flaw in this lat?

es-09Jul27-lat1.jpg.58b68d5e85aeeae71e6993d4fb021870.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:

attachment.php?attachmentid=12444&stc=1&d=1248545051

 

What else might differentiate these three - from each other and from the rest of the market?

 

  dkm said:

This is too vague.

 

Sesame Street teaches young children how to look for differences in things by using muppets and singing songs.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48]YouTube - One of these things is not like the other things.[/ame]

 

  dkm said:

Since "context" has never been defined, this is also too vague.

 

An online dictionary defines context as ...

 

"the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc."

 

Applying this definition, we can understand hearing someone yell, "Fire!" - while observing an execution by firing squad provides a far different meaning than hearing someone yell, "Fire!" while sitting in a crowded movie theater.

 

In the latter, the word 'fire' represents a 'noun' (i.e. "Something is burning"). In the former, the word 'fire' represents a 'verb' (i.e. "Pull the trigger and shoot the guy").

 

Context (the location or circumstances which surround the event) alters the meaning of the word.

 

Certainly, everyone can think of circumstances (or events) whereby the context in which the trader views Price and Volume (Monitor) alters the meaning (analysis) of what the market has signalled.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
Sesame Street teaches young children how to look for differences in things by using muppets and singing songs.

- Spydertrader

 

An amusing analogy but not entirely correct. Sesame Street actually points out the correct answer. To set tasks and never give an explanation is no way to achieve transference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.