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

Efforts for 7/31/2009. Re-reading posts #5, 6, 17, 23. Building tapes from 2 bars (post #5) then shifting the trendlines as the path of the tape develops (as in post #23). Is it possible that this day only has 2 fractals? Tapes and Traverse? (might we be seeing one section of a channel within a channel that started in history??) Please advice on corrections needed in annotation. Thank you!

es-09Jul31-2.thumb.jpg.64011f1af4de4dd64b64d21bd1d80a57.jpg

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My efforts for the 3 fractals from Friday (7/31).

 

WOW! Thank you! We were posting at similar time, and saw your post when I updated. Will now go study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My efforts for the 3 fractals from Friday (7/31).

 

Thank you for posting ehorn. My effort is very similar to yours but one spot where we differ is the bar on which the first down tape begins. Both you and romanus, who posted elsewhere, start at bar 5 whereas I started at bar 4.

 

Bar 4 shows a decrease in pace compared to bar 3 and fails to reach the LTL of both the 2 bar tape (bars 3 and 4) and the 4 bar tape (bars 1 through 4). This way of describing things also gives a very nice "r"2 r involving bars 4, 5, and 6.

 

Could you, or anyone else explain which interpretation should be favoured?

 

TIA

 

Note: Tapes were drawn using NT's 'line tool' with colors and line type for illustrative purposes only.

5aa70f0b95899_ES09-097_31_2009(5Min)AMTape.thumb.jpg.af711bac9824d4979d36907a6010636f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Both you and romanus, who posted elsewhere, start at bar 5 whereas I started at bar 4.

 

Bar 4 shows a decrease in pace compared to bar 3 and fails to reach the LTL of both the 2 bar tape (bars 3 and 4) and the 4 bar tape (bars 1 through 4). This way of describing things also gives a very nice "r"2 r involving bars 4, 5, and 6.

 

...

The way I looked at it, which may not necessarily be correct, is that, if one begins the down tape with bar 4, one would effectively place p1 of that down tape at the high of bar 4 and p2 at the low of bar 5. Which results in a tape that doesn't have a p3. When bar 6 arrives with increasing volume we have a trend, and as such p3 must be placed somewhere. Bar 5 already has p2 at it's low and as such is eliminated from consideration. Accelerating the tape to bar 6 produces the tape which has p1 and p2 on bar 5 and p3 on bar 6, which may or may not be more accurate way of annotating a trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I looked at it, which may not necessarily be correct, is that, if one begins the down tape with bar 4, one would effectively place p1 of that down tape at the high of bar 4 and p2 at the low of bar 5. Which results in a tape that doesn't have a p3. When bar 6 arrives with increasing volume we have a trend, and as such p3 must be placed somewhere. Bar 5 already has p2 at it's low and as such is eliminated from consideration. Accelerating the tape to bar 6 produces the tape which has p1 and p2 on bar 5 and p3 on bar 6, which may or may not be more accurate way of annotating a trend.

 

Thanks romanus. Your argument is based on the assumption that points 1, 2, and 3 of the 'primordial' tape must be located on 2 bars and if that were so, then I would have to agree that yours and ehorn's interpretation was the favoured one. However in this post The Price / Volume Relationship - Page 15 Spyder shows that it is not the case that points 1, 2, and 3 only be on 2 bars of a primordial tape. Now as luck would have in the example we are talking about, the 2 bar tape between bars 4 and 5 forms a perfect "LTL" tape , if you will. By my read an "LTL" bar behaves more like a "VE" bar, so I am comfortable with putting point 2 at the bottom of bar 5.

 

Like you though, what I have adopted is a working hypothesis and I would, as always, delight in having someone trash it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'polarity' of a bar appears to have some consequences as evidenced by the discussion between romanus and myself. It would seem that both of the situations described are possible and acceptable under the correct conditions.

 

By polarity is meant that for a rising black bar (as distinct from an IBGS bar) P1 is at the bottom and P2 at the top, while for a falling red bar the opposite is true.

 

Does anyone know of other situations where attention to the polarity is important? Again, with the discussion noted above, its consideration affected how a Gaussian was read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one more imitation strawberry poptart of a question for Sunday morning.

 

Can the highest pace bar of a 5 min ES traverse ever be the point 1, point 2 or point 3 of that traverse?

 

Now I will take your leave and journey north to install the dreaded Vista on my wife's new computer. Gak. What a wretched OS but from what I hear Windows 7 is a bit of a pearl and set for public release soon.

 

Have a good day.

 

PS: Yes, that's me. The little nerd in the back with red hair, freckles and coke-bottle spectacles. The only stupid question is the question left unasked. If cnms2 can get poetic, then so too pour moi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just reminded me I have this one laying around.

Originally drawn and shared by Mr. Black, ( nice contribution Mr. B ) slightly modified shortly after.

 

Thank you Tikitrader. Very helpful! Is it correct to say that tapes consists of 2 bar? More than 2 bars are traverse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for the reminder to not jump fractals. What does this last sentence mean?

 

What is the best path to building the gausian lines?

Check Spydertrader's post #6

B2B.jpg.b2a37333aad8377b6627278c3b508b07.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this the correct annotation for tapes?

 

 

people can give you relevant feedback

if you add notes to describe why you are doing what under which circumstance (context)...

otherwise it will just be a hit-or-miss circle game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people can give you relevant feedback

if you add notes to describe why you are doing what under which circumstance (context)...

otherwise it will just be a hit-or-miss circle game.

 

Hmm, here is attempt to be more specific (times are in CST, I don't know how to change time to EST in ninjatrader).

 

From 8:35 to 8:40am - Outside bar tape, vol reduces from 8:35 to 8:40 therefore black gaussian down (is this correct?)

 

From 8:40am (point 1 of tape down) to 8:45am (point 2 of tape down) - increased red gaussian in vol plane until price will go no no lower in the tape down from point 1 to point 2 in price plane.

 

From 8:45am (pt 2) to 8:50am - decreasing black gaussian until price will not go any higher within the down tape.

 

From 8:50 to 8:55am - increasing red gaussian until price will not go any lower within the down tape (the lowest price point of this down tape).

 

Low point of 8:55am bar forms point 1 of the tape up.

 

From 8:55 to 9:00am - decreasing black gaussian until price will not go any higher within the tape down (orange line for adjusted down trendline of down tape)

 

From 9:00 to 9:10am - increasing black gaussian until price will not go any higher within the tape up

 

From 9:10 to 9:15am - decreasing red gaussian until price will not go any lower within the tape up

 

From 9:15am to 9:20am - increasing black gaussian until price will not go any higher within the tape up

 

9:20am forms the first bar of Lateral tape.

 

Is the above all correct? If not, please point out what needs to be altered. Thank you!

es-09Aug03-1a.thumb.jpg.13ee8bd04a9cb55e59ab628eadb62b63.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...times are in CST, I don't know how to change time to EST in ninjatrader)...

 

 

In the future,

don't worry about the time.

The easiest for everybody is to label the bars with numbers...

then everybody will be on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the future,

don't worry about the time.

The easiest for everybody is to label the bars with numbers...

then everybody will be on the same page.

 

Thanks. Good idea. I know something is not right as I don't see a continuous X2X 2y 2X sequence. But not sure how to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I know about lateral formations

 

To start a lateral formation minimum 3 bars are required where bar 2 and 3 are contained within bar 1

 

It can be ended in several ways:

 

- 2 consecutive closes outside the lateral boundaries without forming a new formation with the exception when these 2 closes are flaws, then we need 3 bars outside the lateral

- an ibgs that pierces a boundary

- when a new lateral formation is created inside the lateral formation

 

There are 2 types of lateral formations that matter : those that start on or after pt2 (and before pt3) being non-dominant lateral formations

and those that start after pt3 being dominant lateral formations

 

Feel free to add missing things/make corrections

 

--

innersky

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • 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/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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