The Price / Volume Relationship

[FJK 10]

To users of Trade Navigator:

 

On Genesis' forum, there has been posted a note in the wish-list section about a 'gap-removal' functionality. I urge you to support this initiative by posting your opinion as well. www.Genesisft.com • View topic - Gap removal

[treeline 10]

To users of Trade Navigator:

 

On Genesis' forum, there has been posted a note in the wish-list section about a 'gap-removal' functionality. I urge you to support this initiative by posting your opinion as well. www.Genesisft.com • View topic - Gap removal

 

Thanks, FJK. I contacted Genesis about this issue several weeks ago. I was told that a gap removal tool is on their "to-do" list, but that Genesis' developers were not actively working on it at that time. Hopefully your request on the wishlist forum will lead them to give it a higher priority. I'll add my name to the list once they process my registration to the forum.

[Mr_black 10]

ES 10/19/09

[double eagle 10]

Here's my work for today (10/19).

[rs5 10]

Monday 19 October 2009

[Breakeven 10]

Continuing my journey from the beginning, attached are my thoughts on combining the two bar tapes from 7/6/09 into larger containers by fanning and accelerating. These are drawn without Gaussian fractals applied.

 

The double line weight tapes on this chart are the smallest containers that I would normally draw, the single line weight tapes are the "ten cases" tapes.

 

I have a few areas where guidance would be greatly appreciated:

 

1. Do my reasons for fanning/accelerating (noted on the chart) produce correct tapes?

 

2. Do I take these larger containers in combination with Gaussian fractals to produce the "true" L1 Tapes?

 

3. Have I gone about this backwards and should instead go from the ten cases straight to L1 Tapes with correct Gaussians? If this is the case where would sub-fractals of a Tape be identified?

 

I understand that the purpose of this thread is to learn to seek answers from the market itself. So I will make an effort to restrict questions more towards the steps of the method instead of how the market moves.

[MKTr 10]

Good Evening,

 

Does anyone have comments on today's ES activity? I have two main observations/questions. The market did not appear to sync until bar 7 (I know, probably just me - Gaussians appeared upside down) and I did not see a clear sequence followed overall (again, probably just me). By the sequence I mean that we had a clear dominant long traverse then a lateral then a short traverse. To me, it looked like B2B2R2R. Both really gave me trouble. I will follow up with a chart when I can.

 

I am new at this and appoligize if I am asking clumsily.

 

Thanks

 

MK

[sscott 10]

Good Evening,

 

Does anyone have comments on today's ES activity?

MK

 

Yes, I annotated a small down traverse early and then started the up traverse that wouldn't stop fanning out. The market went sideways from 11:30 ish on (3 point range all afternoon).

My chart sucks today so I'm not going to post it.

sscott

[romanus 10]

 

Does anyone have comments on today's ES activity?

The skinny teal in the attached is not a traverse, medium blue (numbered) - is. Unless I messed up the laterals mid-day, the skinny red down tape at the end of the day should grow into traverse.

[Mr_black 10]

So far today

[rs5 10]

Tuesday 20 October 2009

[Mr_black 10]

Wednesday so far

[rs5 10]

Wednesday 21 October 2009

[ehorn 10]

My view of the day...

[Mr_black 10]

Thursday so far

[romanus 10]

Just wondering if anybody else had 14:30 bar yesterday (10/21) completely inside the 14:20 SYM in Real Time data stream. Mine did and apparently, upon refresh I no longer had a lateral beginning with 14:20 SYM which totally changed the context. TIA

P.S. Ehorn's chart shows a traverse while mine and rs5's only a tape. Obviously it was a Traverse.

[Ezzy 10]

I have the same data as you and rs5, using TN and Genesis data feed. 1093.75 high for both bars.

[romanus 10]

I have the same data as you and rs5, using TN and Genesis data feed. 1093.75 high for both bars.

Thanks, there's got to be something else that would suggest that 14:35 was a Point 2 of the Traverse. I just can't see it yet.

[ehorn 10]

My view of the day...

[rs5 10]

Thursday 22 October 2009

[cnms2 10]

Thanks, there's got to be something else that would suggest that 14:35 was a Point 2 of the Traverse. I just can't see it yet.

The market is quite redundant in signals, and I think that almost any small inaccuracy of the P+V data is taken care of with negligible impact (if any) on the trader's view of the market, and implicitly his P/L.

 

I see that almost every poster has a different view of the lateral formation's definition and scope; sometimes there are such variations on the same chart ... It is quite possible to correctly view the market and stay on the same fractal even when completely ignoring lateral formations' existence, while their inconsistent use will probably be a source of errors.

 

If you wish, post an annotated chart of yesterday's period 1045 (or 1210) to 1520, noting for each lateral you draw or ignore why you did it so.

[romanus 10]

... It is quite possible to correctly view the market and stay on the same fractal even when completely ignoring lateral formations' existence...

I can't really find any reasons to disagree that such possibility exists. Should you choose to elaborate more in-depth, you will find that I will be extremely appreciative and very careful not to dismiss any facts.

 

 

... If you wish, post an annotated chart of yesterday's period 1045 (or 1210) to 1520, noting for each lateral you draw or ignore why you did it so.

Instead of ignoring the laterals I am attempting to learn what the market is communicating through them in order to find the solution that works across all contexts.:shrug:

 

It seems to me that the existence or non-existence of the lateral beginning with 14:20 bar (10/21) changes the context.

[ehorn 10]

It seems to me that the existence or non-existence of the lateral beginning with 14:20 bar (10/21) changes the context.

 

Hey romanus,

 

If 14:20 was a lateral, what type would it be? How does it change the context?

[ehorn 10]

Some general observations and ponderings on Laterals.

 

Observations:

• I observe differing 'types' of laterals.
  
• Laterals display sentiment. How price enters and how price exits seems relevant.
  
• Not all laterals are laterals per-say (i.e. one thing may end and another begin within them)
  
• Some laterals appear more significant than others (on a given fractal).
  

 

General Ponderings (rhetorical):

• It seems important to distinguish between 'types' of laterals.
  
• If some laterals are more important than others, what indicators would lead one to pay more close attention to particular laterals?
  
• When certain laterals show up on the scene, where does one find oneself (with respect to the sequences)?
  

[cnms2 10]

I can't really find any reasons to disagree that such possibility exists. Should you choose to elaborate more in-depth, you will find that I will be extremely appreciative and very careful not to dismiss any facts.

Building complete 1-BO-2-3- (FTT/VE-2'-3' ...) sequences where each of the legs can also be built of one ore more levels of visible complete sequences, defined by both price and volume, while keeping count of their nesting to stay on the same fractal.

Instead of ignoring the laterals I am attempting to learn what the market is communicating through them in order to find the solution that works across all contexts.:shrug:

 

It seems to me that the existence or non-existence of the lateral beginning with 14:20 bar (10/21) changes the context.

I was suggesting that you posted a snippet with your P&V annotations, and your reasoning for starting and ending each lateral, to see what you're seeing. For instance, I see a lateral like in the attached ...