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

Yes.

 

- Spydertrader

 

I read this previous post

 

 

Yes, we certainly do. We also know the date and time said up channel ended as well.

 

- Spydertrader

 

 

 

I know you referred to this period as a channel. ( beginning with 10:10 AM on 7-13-2009, and continuing through until 15:30 PM on 8-5-2009 the market has provided just such an event )

 

I have this as a tape that ended, and now two tapes forming and creating a traverse. ( on a daily level )

I have a daily chart I have been building a daily up channel since an FTT around April 1 /09. The first dom traverse completed June 10th.

The final dom traverse is being constructed now.

If this is the answer I dont know what the h*ll the mental block was. I have this annotated already.

 

attached an image of a daily I had from July 16 09. Sorry nothing more recently full annotated.

(pink highlight has nothing to do with laterals )

 

Thanks

p.s if wrong I am going out drinking so heavy I will be reviewing charts with pink elephants

5aa70f169a47e_dailychannel.thumb.jpg.3eb64ec2571021a1bc54d1ef7afc6ac6.jpg

Edited by TIKITRADER
added date reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I see the chart from my previous post would play out and finish fractals to build what I have been building as a channel.

This is just for illustrative purposes and not a price level prediction chart.

 

As price has already made significant moves since this image was taken ( arrows just added, again for illustration ),

for what has built ( as I have annotated ) a final dominant traverse ( of a daily channel build ) has completed a dominant move, is constructing a non dominant move , will complete sequences with a final dominant move, complete this traverse, and look for change and break out.

5aa70f16a4656_HEADSHOULDER.thumb.jpg.ec3aa9a646958cc10eda9dce13b5616d.jpg

Edited by TIKITRADER
clarify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is attachment to go with daily channel drill.

 

Thank you nkhoi for pointing out the close of 8/5 daily bar outside of the blue channel marking the end of the blue channel.

 

8/6 purple point 3 forms and purple channel is created. 8/11 bar closes outside of the purple channel marking the end of the purple channel.

 

On vol panel, what are the correct fractals between 7/30 and 8/4 please?

Drill-09Aug17-3.thumb.jpg.af59b44946c576dbfb22e4f4bf154cdf.jpg

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
may I ask, why is it correct?

 

LOL, the purple trendlines do look correct now. But something is wrong with the fractals in the vol pane and I am not sure what to do to fix it. Rrrrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you post the chart that goes with this text please? Thank you!

 

rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This AM I felt in sync with the market. Was getting the transition points as they were happening. I am not sure if it was luck or just paying more attention to the volume bars, and formations as they develop. Instead of doing a forest view, as was taught for beginners before, I am zooming in all the way, at the tape fractal level with price and gaussians. Then as I see more unfold, I am trying to expand my picture to traverses. When thinking at the fractal level, and how it should develop, in addition to keeping in mind when the traverse will form is a lot of information to process at once. Sometimes, I think I have the right amount of gaussian formations to move from the tape, by starting to draw traverse lines, but then if I labeled the gaussians incorrectly at the tape fractal level, I encounter a problem, that requires more mental adjustments. As I have said before I think the biggest obstacle is labeling the gaussian formations correctly, since they do not develop all pretty and in order as pictured in the model.

8-18-2009amES.thumb.jpg.672fdd367719c8af77d62a7dc0cd13ff.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.

 

LOL, Thank you ljyoung! I had no idea those belong together. Let me review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.

 

"Clean Page 4" does not look like the chart that goes with "Clean Page 1". There are no gaussians shown on Clean Page 4. If you mean another chart, will you show link or post? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Clean Page 4" does not look like the chart that goes with "Clean Page 1". There are no gaussians shown on Clean Page 4. If you mean another chart, will you show link or post? Thank you.

 

In this particular case you don't need Gaussians to understand what is being said. Use Spyder's Gaussian representations. While at first glance Jack's chart - without the Gaussians - may appear rather trivial, I assure you it isn't. In fact it readily explains one of your questions from earlier today. Figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spyder,

 

I have a question about the attached snippet. Specifically, the 1310 bar on 08/10 (highlighted in yellow). From time to time I run across an area such as this, where I am unable to ftt the bar on any fractal. The gaussians support that this area completes the 2-3 movement, but is that possible with the ve? I'm very familiar with the valuable discussion between Romanus and PointeOne on this topic.

 

Does such an event tell me that I have taped the area incorrectly? What am I missing here?

 

Thanks for your feedback.attachment.php?attachmentid=13015&stc=1&d=1250658768

0805snip.png.7a813fecaee2b0ff89449d99f045c83f.png

Edited by jbarnby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11imu6f.png

If we have a b2b2r2b gaussian sequence on every fractal, could someone please explain where is the b2b between p1 and p2 of the tapes illustrated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction to my above post. The highlighted bar is on 08/05...as shown in the snippet. I incorrectly referred to this as 08/10. Sorry for any confusion...it was a late night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we have a b2b2r2b gaussian sequence on every fractal, could someone please explain where is the b2b between p1 and p2 of the tapes illustrated?

 

The b2b is intrabar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spyder,

 

I have a question about the attached snippet. Specifically, the 1310 bar on 08/10 (highlighted in yellow). From time to time I run across an area such as this, where I am unable to ftt the bar on any fractal. The gaussians support that this area completes the 2-3 movement, but is that possible with the ve? I'm very familiar with the valuable discussion between Romanus and PointeOne on this topic.

 

Does such an event tell me that I have taped the area incorrectly? What am I missing here?

 

Thanks for your feedback.attachment.php?attachmentid=13015&stc=1&d=1250658768

 

There are two processes taking place here (as there always are), an upthing and a downthing. The downthing broke (pierced and closed below) the RTL of the upthing but that's as far as it went because the downthing had completed. Multiple b2b's followed, occasioning, due to the magnitude of the price change, a fanout of the upthing RTL and the creation of a 'new' P2 for the upthing. The terminal bar of the completed downthing was in fact a 'new' P3 of the upthing but as we have already noted, a 'new' P2 for the upthing has been formed and so now we are looking for another 'new' P3 for the upthing.

 

As to your question as to why this entire process was not associated with an FTT of the 'downthing', one answer would be another question. Why should it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to your question as to why this entire process was not associated with an FTT of the 'downthing', one answer would be another question. Why should it be?

 

Spyder recently referenced the discussion between PointOne and Romanus. In his reference, he stated "Within that exchange, one can learn what sequence of events must develop at each 'Point' (1, 2 or 3). In other words, something must happen on one fractal in order to form the 'Point' (1, 2, or 3) of the next slower fractal above it."

 

What I took away from this post is that an FTT is required on one fractal so that we can form a point 1,2,3 on the higher fractal. Spyder used the word "must", and I know he chooses his words deliberately. In my snippet I cannot annotate such an event, which leads me to conclude that the 1310 bar cannot be a pt 3 on my trading fractal.

 

All I'm trying to do LJ is advance thru another plateau while seeking a better understanding of the method. Perhaps I'm merely struggling with what something "looks" like vs what has actually taken place. Ahhh...the wonderful process of differentiation.

 

I'm certainly interested in feedback from anyone on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The b2b is intrabar.

 

Then what is the point of drawing the gaussian?? And how is one supposed to track the b2b2r2b sequence at L1?

Edited by dkm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spyder recently referenced the discussion between PointOne and Romanus. In his reference, he stated "Within that exchange, one can learn what sequence of events must develop at each 'Point' (1, 2 or 3). In other words, something must happen on one fractal in order to form the 'Point' (1, 2, or 3) of the next slower fractal above it."

 

What I took away from this post is that an FTT is required on one fractal so that we can form a point 1,2,3 on the higher fractal. Spyder used the word "must", and I know he chooses his words deliberately. In my snippet I cannot annotate such an event, which leads me to conclude that the 1310 bar cannot be a pt 3 on my trading fractal.

 

All I'm trying to do LJ is advance thru another plateau while seeking a better understanding of the method. Perhaps I'm merely struggling with what something "looks" like vs what has actually taken place. Ahhh...the wonderful process of differentiation.

 

I'm certainly interested in feedback from anyone on this issue.

 

You have said it yourself that the 13:10 bar can't be a P3 on your trading fractal which is exactly what I said, albeit in a slightly different fashion. You could fan out the RTL (because the break was made on increased volume) only after the 'new' P2 was made. So was the fact that you couldn't construct an FTT with the 13:10 bar in effect telling you that it couldn't be the 'real' P3 and that you should anticipate a 'new' P2 somewhere down the road, which is in fact what heppened?

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.