The Price / Volume Relationship

[romanus 10]

Hey romanus,

 

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

It would have been a 'Dominant Lateral' which is created by price moving from p2 to p3 of something.

1420 bar can't be a Point 2 of the traverse which begins at 1400 for reasons previously discussed. And If 14:20 was a lateral then 1435 would have been a part of that lateral and not a Point 2 of the Traverse. And 1605 would not have been a Point 2 of the accelerated traverse, but instead of the faster fractal tape. And 1005 (10/22) would not have been the end of the Traverse sequence but instead of the faster fractal tape. Of course, this is just my opinion, meaning that I have developed a tendency to hallucinate things in a certain way, which may or may not be the correct way.

[ehorn 10]

It would have been a 'Dominant Lateral' which is created by price moving from p2 to p3 of something.

 

Thanks for the reply...

 

Does the market confirm this? Price moving from pt2-pt3 of something sounds like Non-Dominant movement to me... Why would we call this lateral "Dominant"?

 

More generally, how does one determine the 'type' of lateral the market is building?

[cnms2 10]

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

Two possibilities, using rs5's chart: with and without a 1420 lateral.

[cnms2 10]

... For instance, I see a lateral like in the attached ...

... possible tapes and traverses:

[romanus 10]

Thanks for the reply...

 

Does the market confirm this? Price moving from pt2-pt3 of something sounds like Non-Dominant movement to me... Why would we call this lateral "Dominant"?

 

More generally, how does one determine the 'type' of lateral the market is building?

 

While attempting to learn from the market, I operate under the assumption that the lateral that moves the price from p2 to p3 is different from the lateral that moves the price from p3 to the end of the sequence. Calling one 'Dominant' and the other 'Non-dominant' seems like a convenient way to label different scenarios.

 

...

More generally, how does one determine the 'type' of lateral the market is building?

Personally, I attempt to differentiate them on the basis of where in the sequence the lateral begins. In other words, I seem to hallucinate the differences between arriving at p3 and then beginning to move laterally towards the end of the (tape, traverse) sequence vs. arriving at p2 and then beginning to move laterally towards p3.

[romanus 10]

Hey romanus,

 

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

Apologies for the confusion. I just realized that 1435 is inside the previous traverse - which would make it irrelevant whether or not there was a lateral at 1420. All that of course is based on the assumption that there was in fact a previous traverse (which means that the annotations in the attached have to be corrected to reflect that). The assumption that there was a previous traverse is unfortunately not based on facts but rather my inability to hallucinate the alternative annotations.:rofl:

[Mr_black 10]

so far

[romanus 10]

...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. ...

I end the laterals when the price exits or /and certain types of OB & IBGS. I start them after pennants or EH.

[rs5 10]

Friday 23 October 2009

[ehorn 10]

Have a nice weekend everyone...

[FJK 10]

Have a nice weekend everyone...

 

Thanks for posting.

 

My take on 23/10-2009. Comments welcome

[rs5 10]

Two possibilities, using rs5's chart: with and without a 1420 lateral.

 

Thank you for posting.

 

Your magenta arrows shows very nicely how the volume first contracts at SYM and then red volume is increasing with downmove of the price from 13:00 to 13:20 indicating bias to the down side. (13:00 is not bar 1 of a lateral, but the first bar of a series of flaws that follows it)

 

13:20 is bar one of the first lateral. And as is expected in laterals the volume becomes smaller across the duration of the lateral. There is a slight surge in volume (slightly larger red volume bar than previous volume bar) as the market tries to push outside of the lateral at 13:35 testing the lower boundary of bar 1 of lateral 1 (13:20 bar), however not power enough to start a directional move and it falls back into another lateral (2), continuing the lateral 1. Encouraged by the lack of power to the downside, market makes a surge to the upside at 13:50 (slightly larger black volume than previous volume bar) testing the top of bar 1 of lateral 1. The next volume bar is smaller even as the high of the previous price bar is tested. So still not powerful enough for a directional move and it falls into another lateral, continuing the previous two overlapping laterals. In both cases, the slight surges of volume at 13:35 and 13:50 are progressively smaller volume bars than the volume bar at 13:20, and volume is decreasing in height indicating that the laterals 2 and 3 are still part of lateral 1. The three overlapping laterals eventually come to a close after the second close outside of the boundaries of of all three bar 1s.

 

What I am not sure of is whether 13:50 is the first close of the laterals as it closed outside of bar 1 of lateral 1, or whether the count starts again after all three overlapping laterals are accounted for. As I was confused, I left all of it on there (lol - location of 1st close, plus kept laterals colors until 2nd closed bar outside all 3 overlapping bar 1s)

 

Any clarification welcomed.

Edited October 24, 2009 by rs5

[cnms2 10]

... What I am not sure of is whether 13:50 is the first close of the laterals as it closed outside of bar 1 of lateral 1, or whether the count starts again after all three overlapping laterals are accounted for. As I was confused, I left all of it on there (lol - location of 1st close, plus kept laterals colors until 2nd closed bar outside all 3 overlapping bar 1s)

 

Any clarification welcomed.

I applied my interpretation of Spydertrader's posts #41

 

After completing the 'tape drawing' drill, and after one begins to 'merge' the individual 'two bar' tapes into longer trends which continue the current 'tape fractal,' stop annotating 'tapes' within Lateral Formations. Begin to note the significant shift in Pace which develops inside every Lateral Formation. Note as well the changes which develop as Price moves from inside a Lateral Formation to an area where the Lateral Formation ends.

 

and #110

 

The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw.' In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.

[rs5 10]

I applied my interpretation of Spydertrader's posts #41

 

and #110

 

 

Thank you for the reposts.

[rs5 10]

Monday 26 October 2009

[innersky 10]

chart for October 26

 

--

innersky

[romanus 10]

Monday, October 26, 2009.

[ehorn 10]

Nice to see some charts

 

My view of the day...

[Gregor_S 10]

I have been away from trading for the last couple of months. This is my work for yesterday.

[rs5 10]

Tuesday 27 October 2009

[cnms2 10]

Fractals ... Cycles ... Goats.

 

The market signals its intention long time before your best trading point for your targeted time frame. It's up to you to do it right, early or late ...

[romanus 10]

To paraphrase the infamous MC commercial:

 

incorrectly identifying Point Two of the Traverse:

 

9.9 on The '1-10 Pain Scale'

 

subsequently assuming that the sequence which ended on the 1st bar was a Traverse:

 

5.9 on The '1-10 Pain Scale'

 

seeing the Price cross the 'CP4 green line of no return' by one tick before dropping 10 pts:

 

PRICELESS

 

:rofl:

[Gregor_S 10]

My chart for yesterday.

[Breakeven 10]

I am having a problem reconciling two of the images that Spyder posted near the beginning of the thread. One image shows a Traverse, with Tapes and Channel labeled. The second image is the volume pane fractals. I have combined the images for attachment.

 

For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse. I have spent the last week or so on just this subject. Not just on this image alone, but comparing to other days of my own charts.

 

From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes. Also, that each segment of a Channel will have the full sequence representing a Traverse. This is what I understand a fractal to be, each part being composed of a smaller complete part. If this understanding is off the mark, please tell me I am digging in the wrong hole.

 

So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence.

 

I am hoping someone can disabuse me of my understanding of the volume fractals, or help me see how those fractals show up in the Tapes of the attached Traverse.

 

Thanks for any help

[Ezzy 10]

For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse. I have spent the last week or so on just this subject. Not just on this image alone, but comparing to other days of my own charts.

It's possible that the tape volume sequence isn't visible on the 5m ES for these particular tapes. See the link below.

 

From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes. Also, that each segment of a Channel will have the full sequence representing a Traverse. This is what I understand a fractal to be, each part being composed of a smaller complete part. If this understanding is off the mark, please tell me I am digging in the wrong hole.

Yes, for a down traverse a R2R tape, 2B tape, and 2R tape.

 

So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence.

I don't see where dec red tape goes to a dec black tape. Could you doctor the pic?

 

I am hoping someone can disabuse me of my understanding of the volume fractals, or help me see how those fractals show up in the Tapes of the attached Traverse.

 

Thanks for any help

The link below and series of posts below it may or may not help. As mentioned, sometimes you might not be able to see the full volume gaussian cycles clearly on 5min bars. The 1st clip you posted has tapes, those have everything required for tapes, all on the 5min ES. If you are trying to fit those tapes in with the BBT's, they are two different orientations and might not always mesh.

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-3.html#post71051

 

Notice on some posted charts on the 1st leg of a B2B there might be lower fractals that come together at the trough and finish on the up leg (2B). But on the 2B up leg, a r2b sub-fractal may or may not show up. The point being each leg may not have the same number of sub-fractals. And on a tape sometimes you have to go YM or maybe tick to see the full volume cycle. Hope that helps.