The Price / Volume Relationship

[romanus 10]

can you post a diagram to illustrate your description?

 

TIA

Examples of all three in the attached.

[gucci 10]

I note 3 types of laterals: (a) Point 2 to Point 3 movements, (b) post Point 3 movements into the trend, and © Point 1 to Point 2 movements [e.g. 15:15 on 7/23]. I suppose, both (b) and © can be classified as non-dominant. [As in one thing is dominant entering the lateral and then another thing is dominant exiting the lateral]. Other than their location in the gaussian sequence, I can't think of any other way of differentiating them.

 

 

Romanus, how Point 2 to Point 3 movement can be dominant? (in a binary universe of course)

[romanus 10]

Romanus, how Point 2 to Point 3 movement can be dominant? (in a binary universe of course)

Adding a word 'dominant' or 'non-dominant' in front of the word 'lateral' doesn't change the nature of the lateral formation/movement. I believe it only serves as a way of differentiating various types of laterals. Sort of "vocabulary word" type of deal. However, don't qoute me on this, as there may be a hidden meaning there in the particular choice of words (dominant/non-dominant).

[gucci 10]

Adding a word 'dominant' or 'non-dominant' in front of the word 'lateral' doesn't change the nature of the lateral formation/movement. I believe it only serves as a way of differentiating various types of laterals. Sort of "vocabulary word" type of deal. However, don't qoute me on this, as there may be a hidden meaning there in the particular choice of words (dominant/non-dominant).

 

Those "vocabulary words" influence decisions and actions resulting from them. It is kind of important. How would you describe the "nature" of a lateral which comprises the movement of price from point 2 to point 3? What decision (and appropriate action) would result from the aforementioned different description?

[ljyoung 10]

Romanus is spot on. Don't get hung up on a word. Call them Type I and Type II laterals, remembering that for the purposes of this discussion, ALL laterals must progress through the following structures: Pennant -> Lateral Formation -> "Lateral".

 

Spyder has said in this thread, we must consider what goes on inside the lateral and to me that means one must answer the questions:

• Where am I in the sequence of the fractal on which I am trading?
  
• Based on my position in the sequence, WMCN? As has been said many, many times before, WMCN refers to what must come next in the 1,2,3 sequence. That's all it means (and that's enough).
  
• How did the lateral start?
  
• What went on as the lateral progressed? This will be more or less important depending on your level of expertise as a trader.
  

 

If you know the answers to these questions, you will know the outcome long before it comes to pass and you just wait for the outcome to show itself. There is ZERO prediction involved. We've had a mess o' laterals this AM which illustrate the logic outlined above. This is NOT the only way to say this stuff. Put it in your own words.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ljyoung
spelling

[gucci 10]

Romanus is spot on. Don't get hung up on a word. Call them Type I and Type II laterals, remembering that for the purposes of this discussion, ALL laterals must progress through the following structures: Pennant -> Lateral Formation -> "Lateral".

 

Spyder has said in this thread, we must consider what goes on inside the lateral and to me that means one must answer the questions:

• Where am I in the sequence of the fractal on which I am trading?
  
• Based on my position in the sequence, WMCN? As has been said many, many times before, WMCN refers to what must come next in the 1,2,3 sequence. That's all it means (and that's enough).
  
• How did the lateral start?
  
• What went on as the lateral progressed? This will be more or less important depending on your level of expertise as a trader.
  

 

If you know the answers to these questions, you will know the outcome long before it comes to pass and you just wait for the outcome to show itself. There is ZERO prediction involved. We've had a mess o' laterals this AM which illustrate the logic outlined above. This is NOT the only way to say this stuff. Put it in your own words.

 

 

ljyoung, are you interested in a scientific discussion of the topic at hand? If you are, then let us cut to the chase and discuss those things. The hole shit we are talking about here is binary (I hope), so the answers to any questions asked schould be unambiguous. I thought you have got a scientific background.

[ljyoung 10]

ljyoung, are you interested in a scientific discussion of the topic at hand? If you are, then let us cut to the chase and discuss those things. The whole shit we are talking about here is binary (I hope), so the answers to any questions asked schould be unambiguous. I thought you have got a scientific background.

 

FYI, that is precisely what I am doing. EVERYTHING about which I spoke is Boolean. That, as you know, is what NO PREDICTION means.

 

Science, as it develops, may or may not have to do with Booleans, but the end point should be a Boolean, if at all possible. Sometimes, for a time, it isn't possible but that is another discussion for another thread.

 

So back to topic which is laterals. Sure looks to me like we had one of those unambiguous change in dominance thingies. So there's got to be a P2 and a P3 leading up to the P1 and we are talking about a traverse in this instance.

[gucci 10]

So back to topic which is laterals. Sure looks to me like we had one of those unambiguous change in dominance thingies. So there's got to be a P2 and a P3 leading up to the P1 and we are talking about a traverse in this instance.

 

I do not understand why you are talking about fractals here (you used the word traverse), I was talking about the movement of price from point 2 to point 3. We could nail it down and move on. Another (not so appealing to me at all) alternative would be to play with definitions and their meanings and get stuck.

[ljyoung 10]

I do not understand why you are talking about fractals here (you used the word traverse), I was talking about the movement of price from point 2 to point 3. We could nail it down and move on. Another (not so appealing to me at all) alternative would be to play with definitions and their meanings and get stuck.

 

You may be playing with definitions. I'm not BUT you'd better know whatTF a P1, a P2 and a P3 are. What I'm talking about is knowing whereTF you are in terms of the fractal on which you are trading. Talking about the 'movement of price from P2 to P3' is meaningless unless you know where you are in terms of the sequence of the fractal on which you are trading.

 

This thread is about the 5 min ES traverse trading fractal unless I've missed something. Read romanus' stuff in this thread and see if that doesn't help.

 

Thank you Spyder. Without your help I would not be able to see more clearly (not perfectly as yet) what the real PV is.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ljyoung
spelling x3 and a variety of grammatical errors as well and an added thank you

[gucci 10]

You may be playing with definitions. I'm not BUT you'd better know whatTF a P1, a P2 and a P3 are. What I'm talking about is knowing whereTF you are in terms of the fractal on which you are trading. Talking about the 'movement of price from P2 to P3' is meaningless unless you know where you are in terms of the sequence of the fractal on which you are trading.

 

This thread is about the 5 min ES traverse trading fractal unless I've missed something. Read romanus' stuff in this thread and see if that doesn't help.

 

Thank you Spyder. Without your help I would not be able to see more clearly (not perfectly as yet) what the real PV is.

 

 

Spyder, you thanked ljyoung. I guess this is really helpful for somebody. What about the question? The lateral movement from point 2 to point 3 can it be a non-dom one?

 

PS: ljyoung, I was not playing with definitions. I hope you know what I'm talking about. Are you a scientist?

Edited July 30, 2009 by gucci
Thank you for your TF that was really helpful

[Spydertrader 10]

I guess this is really helpful for somebody.

 

Your posts continue to confirm observations made long ago: You simply refuse to engage your brain, prior to, engaging your mouth (or in this case, keyboard). Several people have attempted to assist your understanding, but instead of listening to, and learning from, their advice, you have, instead, chosen a different path - one which clearly fails to motivate others to continue their assistance.

 

Jb, Roman and Lj have each provided you with helpful advice. I encourage you to review their recent posting history.

 

If you don't much care for the advice of these three, I suggest you follow your own advice instead ...

 

I won't bother you anymore with my posts.

 

- Spydertrader

[ehorn 10]

My efforts on STITCH / OB / LAT - Differentiation Drill for today.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ehorn
new image - missed an OB :)

[rs5 10]

trying to get to the right ballpark.......

[rs5 10]

My efforts on STITCH / OB / LAT - Differentiation Drill for today.

 

Thank you so much for sharing your efforts! What is your definition of Stitch-DV? Stitch-IV (I noted that both the long and short stitches are thus labeled)? DOM and Non-DOM Laterals? Please, and how do you build up the gausians? building from the smallest unit to the larger as they develop? I am trying to follow as per definition in post #6, but not so sure whether I am hearing the market clearly.

[ehorn 10]

Thank you so much for sharing your efforts! What is your definition of Stitch-DV? Stitch-IV (I noted that both the long and short stitches are thus labeled)? DOM and Non-DOM Laterals? Please, and how doyou build up the gausians? building from the smallest unit to the larger as they develop?

 

yvw,

 

DV = Decreasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

IV = Increasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

 

Think of a flaw (i.e. pennant type) - What type of volume typically forms the second bar of the pennant? A stitch is also a flaw. IMO, The volume of the second bar gives clues as to what type of stitch we are observing (think increasing volume decreasing volatility - or the inverse).

 

With regards to laterals, I share a similar view as JBarnby describes in an earlier post where he describes the differentiation of laterals.

 

Gaussians are tracked and built from lowest fractal to highest (tape ---> traverse ---> channel). Sometimes there are more visible fractals on a 5M chart (sub-fractals) but we strive to focus on the 3 listed above.

 

I have attached my debriefed chart for today. On It, I use blue to indicate tapes, green (today) and orange to indicate traverse (5M level). Looks like tomorrow I will be using the orange...

 

Best wishes

Edited July 31, 2009 by ehorn

[ljyoung 10]

I'm watching Aronofsky's "π". Thank God it's tonight and not 6 months ago or God knows where I'd be (heh, heh). It got me thinking about what we have been discussing and as is often the case, the old man pops up with his set of 'terminators' (my word for want of a better term) and then he vanishes into n-dimensional vector space or wherever it is that he hangs out.

 

Three of the five are the pennants. If you have a third inside bar then you are 'stuck' in the traverse but if you immediately 'break out' of the pennant, then the possible consequences can be quite different if the circumstances are appropriate. Since stitches are just 'reverse pennants' the same logic can apply to them.

 

The trendlines, if you will, associated with the pennants are going to be of particular consequence depending on whether or not you are in a trend which 'matches' the trendlines of the pennant. I think this is what Spyder was talking about in his earlier post. Please note that this is merely my opinion and is not to be construed in any other way.

[Spydertrader 10]

trying to get to the right ballpark.......

 

I recommend begining the process of learning how to locate the 'correct ballpark' by annotating Price Bars two by two (using the examples shown earlier in the thread). Once one understands the correct procedure required for annotation, one can then begin to see how the process of refining one's technique brings things right into focus.

 

Currently, you have attempted to create a medium size and larger picture, but without the added benefit of the building blocks which make up the details.

 

Begin with these smaller pieces and build from there. In such a fashion, you'll soon see how letters form words, and words become sentences. It is within these sentences that the market tells its story.

 

- Spydertrader

[gucci 10]

Your posts continue to confirm observations made long ago: You simply refuse to engage your brain, prior to, engaging your mouth (or in this case, keyboard). Several people have attempted to assist your understanding, but instead of listening to, and learning from, their advice, you have, instead, chosen a different path - one which clearly fails to motivate others to continue their assistance.

 

Jb, Roman and Lj have each provided you with helpful advice. I encourage you to review their recent posting history.

 

If you don't much care for the advice of these three, I suggest you follow your own advice instead ...

 

 

 

- Spydertrader

 

Not much of a choice,don't you think? Either follow the advice of those, who don't understand what they are talking about (or couldn't use their understanding profitably) or shut up. This is really priceless. I hope you enjoy the show,because somebody has to get something from it.

[rs5 10]

yvw,

 

DV = Decreasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

IV = Increasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

 

Think of a flaw (i.e. pennant type) - What type of volume typically forms the second bar of the pennant? A stitch is also a flaw. IMO, The volume of the second bar gives clues as to what type of stitch we are observing (think increasing volume decreasing volatility - or the inverse).

 

 

Thank you so much! This is very helpful. Second vol bar of the pennant is typically smaller than the first vol bar. I will pay attention to the second vol bar of stitch today.

 

 

Gaussians are tracked and built from lowest fractal to highest (tape ---> traverse ---> channel). Sometimes there are more visible fractals on a 5M chart (sub-fractals) but we strive to focus on the 3 listed above.

 

 

Very helpful! Thank you!

 

I have attached my debriefed chart for today. On It, I use blue to indicate tapes, green (today) and orange to indicate traverse (5M level). Looks like tomorrow I will be using the orange...

 

Best wishes

 

Pardon, what do you call the red (tape?) please?

Edited July 31, 2009 by rs5

[rs5 10]

I recommend begining the process of learning how to locate the 'correct ballpark' by annotating Price Bars two by two (using the examples shown earlier in the thread). Once one understands the correct procedure required for annotation, one can then begin to see how the process of refining one's technique brings things right into focus.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you for responding! I am following price annotations as per post #5 (as noted on my chart). Is there something I need to alter to understand the correct procedure please?

 

Thank you!

[Spydertrader 10]

Is there something I need to alter to understand the correct procedure please?

 

1. In the Volume Pane, you'll need three fractals, not just two.

2. In the Price Pane, your trend lines do not show a consistant application of the fractal nature of the market.

 

- Spydertrader

[rs5 10]

1. In the Volume Pane, you'll need three fractals, not just two.

 

ok Thank you

2. In the Price Pane, your trend lines do not show a consistant application of the fractal nature of the market.

- Spydertrader

 

I would appreciate it if you will point out any errors or inconsistancies when you see them so I will be alerted to correct. Thank you!

[Ezzy 10]

I guess ... a useful discussion would be to compare contexts: like 1335 and 1550 laterals, or 1120 and 1210 outside bars, or 1140 and 1525 spikes, etc.. Coming with clear examples, clearly explaining your thought process and conclusions, then asking for comments, would get everybody much more from this thread.

 

Was this in regard to the 7-28-09 ES chart? I don't have the OB's, stitches on mine. But it looks like the laterals and at least one spike referenced are from that day.

[cnms2 10]

It was the 28th, but those where just possible instances for analysis and discussion like any others that could be found almost any day.

[ehorn 10]

My efforts for the 3 fractals from Friday (7/31).