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

Friday 9 April 2010......Have a great weekend all......or is everyone on vacation already?

es-10Apr09-1723.thumb.jpg.36ef2d9ec7b2c16488a704ef14a6fdc9.jpg

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
Some thoughts on PV relationship in a fractal paradigm.

 

 

Thank you for the animated diagram. I am still trying to understand it.

 

Here is a simplified version of one area of a fractal diagram....obviously more fractal layers above and below what is shown here. Does the green zone appear familiar?

Gaussian-es-10Apr12.thumb.jpg.14ca3b410b47ee68b03d7b6f14c172d5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  dkm said:
So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?

 

Hi dkm, I'm glad you are still sticking around. :) To answer your question, you can simply change your way of "seeing" the movement of price from "up" and "down" to "dom" and "nondom" (or to "from right to left" and "from left to right" respectively). Think about it. Do you recall Jack speaking about horizontal orientation?

 

This jem from Spydertrader clarifies the topic. HTH.

 

Forums - Iterative Refinement

Edited by gucci
Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently moved from Los Angeles to Atlanta, didn't have time to look at charts for a while. Hoping to get back into the swing of things. :)

 

Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

04_13_2010_A.thumb.PNG.1a527e1d696009aa4f0226aa908988ae.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wednesday, 4/14/10

 

I may be missing a level of Gaussians between the top two levels. Maybe not. I'm not sure what else to do with them when I see a container (starting today at 10:20) that is traversed many times.

 

Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.

5aa70ff7d819a_ES06-104_14_2010(5Min).thumb.jpg.6419f75f7f856cb4ff812b4145d42b8e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MomentumMike said:
Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.

 

Based on your annotations, you have a non-dominant movement (Points Two to Three) of a container beginning at 15:25 PM Tuesday and ending at 10:20 AM Wednesday (All times Eastern and [close of] ES bars). This movement represents a certain fractal level. Since all markets operate on a fractal basis, the market must have created the same fractal prior to said container, as well as, another (equal sized) container afterwards - in order to complete the sequence of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant. Within each of these fractals, the market must also create faster fractals using the same exact rule set of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant.

 

Based on your Gaussian Annotations, you have 'jumped fractals' as a result of not having the ability to 'see' that which the market has indicated as continuation, rather than, change.

 

Use the non-dominant container as a template. How does it differ from the annotations you have attributed to the same level container after the non-dominant container reached completion?

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
Use the non-dominant container as a template. How does it differ from the annotations you have attributed to the same level container after the non-dominant container reached completion?

 

Thanks very much, Spyder. I think I see my error. My non-dominant move leading to P3 in my non-dominant container has a peak volume that exceeds that of my preceding dominant move (in this case, P1 to P2) in the same container. This is not the case for any of the non-dominant moves within my subsequent dominant container. I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MomentumMike said:
I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

 

You now have a hypothesis.

 

More importantly, you have created a data set which you can apply to any like container in an effort to confirm (or invalidate) said hypothesis. All that remains is to determine whether (or not) you have assembled a sufficient data set.

 

Note all possible parameters which enabled the creation of this container under discussion. At some point in the future, you will see either the exact same set of parameters create the exact same entity, or you'll see a subtle difference indicating that which the market is building has not yet completed.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MomentumMike said:
I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  dkm said:
Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:

Thanks, dkm. I have been looking at this - testing the idea on older charts. It looked to me like I was incorrect, but, I was struggling with whether my "baseline" annotations/context invalidated the tests in the first place.

 

I suppose I'm guilty of over-simplifying. Although, one of the simplest rules of all, "one bar does not a formation break", would have prevented that non-dominant container from appearing on my chart. (Note to all: I have no idea if that rule is truly valid or, if it is, when it applies.)

 

Thanks for saving me some time, dkm. I already put in just about every hour of each day. Now, it's time for more coffee, due to the smilie in your reply. I know I'm going to need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
Look closely at the final 6 bars of the day. Do you see anything you might want to annotate?The rest of your chart looks very nice.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you!

 

. . . . . . . . . .

es-10Apr15-2232.thumb.jpg.854ddbc869839cde02cd80f05d7c8c6d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rs5 said:
Thursday 15 April 2010
  ptunic said:
Thursday, April 15, 2010.
rs5 and ptunic,

 

I am working on separating fractal levels. I think I have a tendency to promote Gaussian lines when they should only be visible at lower fractal levels. I have a question regarding a particular annotation that you both made. If you have a moment and don't mind me asking, please see the attached.

5aa70ff928c5e_GaussianQ.jpg.0b311a801789d654904e948bc035edc2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rs5 said:
Thursday 15 April 2010
  ptunic said:
Thursday, April 15, 2010.
Spyder, rs5, ptunic and all,

 

Another, more important, fractal level question...

 

I have a carry-over up-container that was originally built many days ago by the same fractal level that revealed four containers on 4/15. I am trying to reconcile this and the existence of the down container with P1 at 11:05 and P3 at 15:05. The down container was built by the same fractal level as the CO up-container, but the down container resides inside of the CO up-container. Is this a real possibility or did I somehow botch the up container? It sure seems legit.

 

This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me. Thanks!

5aa70ff9334b7_FractalLevelQ.jpg.c4d1c7deabdcdbca901104fc8cb0e37c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MomentumMike said:
This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me.

 

Your annotations exist accurately, or they do not. Double check any 'math' used for carry over containers (unless gap removal is automated). Review how the black container lines were drawn. It's easy to create error by failing to place a trend line on the exact low or high of the specific Point Three (or Point Two) - especially with multiple day trends. Double check highs / lows for the sepcific bars used with another data source to ensure you don't simply have a data source issue.

 

- Spydertrader

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.