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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

70609combine.thumb.png.90b686ffd4a0c4a057876547a0c40209.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

5aa70f3fa4c4d_10_19_2009(5Min).thumb.png.19189278ce6035c0da9e50faf29328ce.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ...

5aa70f427862f_ehorns10212009crop.thumb.jpg.5713f3c22ec20e32c208af88a01a7ea2.jpg

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.