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

The Lateral Drill laterals all have a higher volume peak for the 1st bar that forms the lateral (or in 1 case the bar before the 1st bar of the lateral which is the same color) than the previous volume peak of the opposite direction price movement.

 

In 1/13/2010 bar 79 this is less apparent but that is because of the end of day effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To inject some life into the lateral formation drill discussion...

 

My hypothesis is that the laterals in questions have two characteristics that separate them from other laterals:

 

1) they begin with a SYM pennant

2) they all form as a R2R or B2B completes (aka pt2) for some fractal level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thursday 21 January 2010

 

rs5 - IMO a declining volume long channel started at 11:45 and ended at 14:35... the rest of the day is R2R on the channel fractal. (channel = your medium gaussian lines)

 

...at least that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rs5 - IMO a declining volume long channel started at 11:45 and ended at 14:35... the rest of the day is R2R on the channel fractal. (channel = your medium gaussian lines)

 

Thank you for your input. Do you mean that you fanned the RTL (small container) from 11:45 est (p1) to 12:55 est (p3)? Or does your 2B (medium container) have p1 at 11:45 rather than at 1:05 est (shown in chart)?

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a closer look at the daily chart for ES.

Not a great chart but you get the idea.

It is from October until now. I have also re-attached the Monthy ES that I posted the other day for ease in comparing the charts.

 

Interesting how the volume is dropping on this up leg on the monthly. The daily looks the same way. Hmmm.

 

 

you do think loud.... ..... .....

 

 

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for sharing this. I know several people wanted a more in-depth description of what you do. Perhaps you might be able to show some real-time analysis of these concepts this coming week? As you know full well, annotating a chart in hindsight is very different from being able to do the same thing real time (which is very different from being able to act on observations).

 

Agree with you. It is where most beginners make mistakes - i think in knowing the exceptions to the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached.

 

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

 

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

 

Note the difference.

 

- Spydertrader

notsame.jpg.b8cadbe1f7a0191b6cd80e2cd4efb49b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how you can group these into those that start with a Sym, and then test the high or low of the 1st bar (without penetrating it), before penetrating the lateral boundary on a later bar.

 

However, from post #1171, I am confused a bit here. It looks like the bar 55 and bar 79 laterals fit this same pattern, but the 67 lateral does not (it starts with a Sym, but there is no bar that tests the lateral before it is penetrated). Just wanted to confirm that neither of those 3 laterals fit into the same set of laterals from the Lateral Drill.

 

I've attached the chart under discussion from #1171 for reference.

example1.gif.ff1b16ba4f55abdf4796e326801d7bbc.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that my question is somewhat off topic, but I am posting in the hope that somebody could point me in the right direction, either here in the thread or by PM, if they wish to remain anonymous. One of the examples of the problem that I am unable to resolve in the present state of my observational skills and sensory acuity is represented in the attached chart: by 11:30 on 1/22 it appears that the container is formed that moved the price from Point 1 to Point 2 of the Traverse. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by what was developed by the end of the day. The subsequent short tape ending at 12:15 on 1/22 appears to have moved the Price to Point 3 of the Traverse and 12:15 to 12:40 long tape seem to have finished the construction of the Traverse.

 

I have been trying to locate the solution that would indicate that annotating in real time as shown in the attached would be a mistake and that the 11:35 to 12:15 tape COULD IN NO WAY represent the r2r (p1 to p2) of the container that moves the price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse and that the 12:20 to 12:40 long tape COULD IN NO WAY represent the retrace in the short container that moves the price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

 

In other words, how can one KNOW in real time that 1135-1215 and 1220-1240 tapes represent medium \R and medium /B as opposed to skinny r2r and skinny 2b of the container that one may think is moving the Price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

 

Thank you to whoever would be kind enough to point me in the right direction.

1_22_2010.thumb.png.22272d45812e536e470b6f278830fa98.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See attached.

 

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

 

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

 

Note the difference.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Hi Spydertrader and All JHM Students,

 

A) Observation on SYM Lateral starts on Bar 43---

 

1) SYM forms on Bar 44

2) Bar 46 is the first bar which tests the bottom boundary of the Lateral

3) This is a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

 

B) Observation on [sYM] Lateral starts on Bar 57---

 

a) Ignoring the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral:

1) SYM forms on Bar 58

2) Bar 62 is the bar which tests the bottom boundary of the Lateral; yet, Bar 61

penetrated (FBO) the bottom boundary of the Lateral before Bar 62 .

3) This is not a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

 

b) Apply the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral:

1) SYM forms on Bar 58

2) Bar 61 penetrated (FBO) the bottom boundary of the Lateral and ends the Lateral.

3) There is no bar testing the bottom boundary of the Lateral before Bar 61.

4) This is not a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

 

All comments are welcome and appreciated! TIA

5aa70fb37195a_SYMLateralDifferentiation.gif.86d9749526e92da5f3efe8c78f27e8a3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused a bit here. It looks like the bar 55 and bar 79 laterals fit this same pattern, but the 67 lateral does not (it starts with a Sym, but there is no bar that tests the lateral before it is penetrated). Just wanted to confirm that neither of those 3 laterals fit into the same set of laterals from the Lateral Drill.

 

67 does not. The other ones do. I posted the corrected chart here: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-30.html#post86620

 

It also gives you a bonus lateral, one on the next day, that is the same. And one later that day that isn't. These two were mention in the post before the chart and so were included. The Green circles are all conforming laterals.

Edited by Ezzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first lateral starts with a dominant bar, while the second starts with a non-dominant bar, however, this bar is also an outside bar.

 

Another difference is that the first lateral moves in the non dominant direction after the second bar, while the other lateral moves in the dominant direction after the second bar.

 

Also the lateral boundary test is not at the same side.

 

--

innersky

 

See attached.

 

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

 

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

 

Note the difference.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, how can one KNOW in real time that 1135-1215 and 1220-1240 tapes represent medium \R and medium /B as opposed to skinny r2r and skinny 2b of the container that one may think is moving the Price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

 

You cannot see what the market has provided because of a bias caused by vocabulary. For now, try not to think in terms of 'tapes' building 'traverses' and 'traverses' building 'channels.' Instead, think in terms of 'fractals' (pipes, tubes, containers or pathways [whatever works best for you]) without names where one fractal builds another moving up to slower and slower fractals, but also, where one fractal is built by something faster moving downward.

 

Remove the overall bias by deleting your Gaussians, and look for an alternative way to annotate the area from 10:20 AM to 11:30 AM. For it is here where the real annotation error resides.

 

Once you can see why the 10:20 AM to 11:30 AM area cannot result in your current annotations, you'll have the answer to your question.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignoring the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral

 

Before one can concern themselves with how something ends, one must (for certain) know how that something begins. Adding uneccesary paramters provides nothing but uneeded complexity. As such, one need not consider (at this point) how any sort of Lateral examples end.

 

Remain focused on how any example begins in order to see whether or not any lateral you see conforms to the examples provided by The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). After you know you have an appropriate example, then you can determine what (if any) subtle differences (in the formation of the object itself) differ in such a way where one has the ability to clearly 'see' what information the market has provided. Finally, by combining this information with context and order of events one can know exactly to annotate a different thing on the chart's Volume Pane.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first lateral starts with a dominant bar, while the second starts with a non-dominant bar, .

 

--

innersky

 

Yes I see this and agree. Laterals form from bar 1 of the lateral, as a dominant bar, or a non dominant bar, and that begins creating the lateral. Respective of the fractal they are on.

 

While a series of laterals within one fractal exist as dom, non dom, dom ( ex: traverse ), on another fractal they may each be dominant( ex: tape level ).

( which may help eliminate fractal jumping and staying on course)

 

jbarnby had begun to differentiate and posted this in the past

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-27.html#post72076

 

and a reply to his work posted here

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-27.html#post72091

Edited by TIKITRADER
added comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the lateral boundary test is not at the same side.

 

The Second Lateral (the 'non-dom' labled example) does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). Understand why it does not.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is monthly ES with gaps closed. Looks to me like we probably made a 2 point of the current up tape. Still working on getting differentiated with lateral formations. Thanks for the discussion.

 

MKTr

5aa70fb3a62ac_MK20100124MnthlyES.thumb.png.a64b48c67f185658a3aa788e00a53912.png

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • NFLX Netflix stock watch, local support and resistance areas at 838.12 and 880.5 at https://stockconsultant.com/?NFLX
    • Date: 8th April 2025.   Markets Rebound Cautiously as US-China Tariff Tensions Deepen     Global markets staged a tentative recovery on Tuesday following a wave of volatility sparked by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. The Asia-Pacific region showed signs of stability after a chaotic start to the week—though some pockets remained under pressure. Taiwan’s Taiex dropped 4.4%, dragged lower by losses in tech heavyweight TSMC. The world’s largest chipmaker fell another 4% on Tuesday and has now slumped 13.5% since April 2, when US President Donald Trump first unveiled what he called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.   However, broader sentiment across the region turned more positive, with several markets rebounding sharply after Monday’s dramatic sell-offs. Japan’s Nikkei 225 surged over 6% in early trading, rebounding from an 18-month low. South Korea’s Kospi rose marginally, and Australia’s ASX 200 gained 1.9%, driven by strength in mining stocks. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 1.6%, though still far from recovering from Monday’s 13.2% crash—its worst day since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China’s Shanghai Composite added 0.9%.   In Europe, DAX and FTSE 100 are up more than 1% in opening trade. EU Commission President von der Leyen repeated yesterday that the EU had offered reciprocal zero tariffs on manufactured goods previously and continues to stand by that offer. Others are also trying again to talk to Trump to get some sort of agreement that limits the impact.   Much of the rally appeared to be driven by dip-buying, as well as hopes that the intensifying trade war could still be defused through negotiations.   China Strikes Back: ‘We Will Fight to the End’   Tensions reached a boiling point after Trump threatened to impose an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing rolled back its retaliatory measures by April 8. ‘If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow... the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%,’ Trump declared on social media.   If implemented, the new tariffs would bring total US duties on Chinese goods to a staggering 124%, factoring in the existing 20%, the 34% recently announced, and the proposed 50%.   In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a stern warning, stating: ‘The US threat to escalate tariffs is a mistake on top of a mistake... If the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.’ The ministry also called for equal and respectful dialogue, though signs of compromise on either side remain scarce.   Beijing acted quickly to contain a market fallout. State funds intervened to support equities, and the People’s Bank of China set the yuan fixing at its weakest level since September 2023 to boost export competitiveness. Additionally, five-year interest rate swaps in China fell to their lowest levels since 2020, indicating potential for further monetary easing.   Trump Talks Tough on EU Too   Trump’s hardline approach extended beyond China. Speaking at a press conference, he rejected the European Union’s offer to eliminate tariffs on cars and industrial goods, accusing the bloc of ‘being very bad to us.’ He insisted that Europe would need to source its energy from the US, claiming the US could ‘knock off $350 billion in one week.’   The EU, meanwhile, backed away from a proposed 50% retaliatory tariff on American whiskey, opting instead for 25% duties on selected US goods in response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.     Volatile Wall Street Adds to the Drama   Wall Street experienced wild swings on Monday as investors processed the rapidly evolving trade conflict. The S&P 500 briefly fell 4.7% before rebounding 3.4%, nearly erasing its losses in what could have been its biggest one-day jump in years—if it had held. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank by as much as 1,700 points early in the day but later climbed nearly 900 points before closing 349 points lower, down 0.9%. The Nasdaq ended up 0.1%.   The brief rally was fueled by a false rumour that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs—rumours that the White House quickly labelled ‘fake news.’ The market's sharp reaction underscored how desperate investors are for any sign that tensions might ease.   Oil Markets in Focus: Goldman Sachs Revises Forecasts   Crude prices also reflected the uncertainty, with US crude briefly dipping below $60 per barrel for the first time since 2021. As of early Tuesday, Brent crude was trading at $64.72, while WTI hovered around $61.26.   Goldman Sachs, in a note dated April 7, lowered its average price forecasts for Brent and WTI through 2025 and 2026, citing mounting recession risks and the potential for higher-than-expected supply from OPEC+.       Under a base-case scenario where the US avoids a recession and tariffs are reduced significantly before the April 9 implementation date, Goldman sees Brent at $62 per barrel and WTI at $58 by December 2025. These figures fall further to $55 and $51, respectively, by the end of 2026. This outlook also assumes moderate output increases from eight OPEC+ countries, with incremental boosts of 130,000–140,000 barrels per day in June and July.   However, should the US slip into a typical recession and OPEC production aligns with the bank’s baseline assumptions, Brent could retreat to $58 by the end of this year and to $50 by December 2026.   In a more bearish scenario involving a global GDP slowdown and no change to OPEC+ output levels, Brent prices might fall to $54 by year-end and $45 by late 2026. The most extreme projection—based on a simultaneous economic downturn and a full reversal of OPEC+ production cuts—would see Brent plunge to below $40 per barrel by the end of 2026.   Goldman noted that oil prices could outperform forecasts significantly if there was a dramatic shift in tariff policy and a surprise in global demand recovery.   Cautious Optimism, But Warnings Persist   With both Washington and Beijing showing no signs of backing down, markets are likely to remain volatile in the days ahead. Investors now turn their attention to upcoming trade meetings and policy decisions, hoping for clarity in what has become one of the most unpredictable trading environments in recent years.   Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report. Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Andria Pichidi HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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