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

My chart for 10/7/2010.

Thanks for viewing my charts, pointing out mistakes and steering me to the right direction.

 

Look at your chart at the beginning of your annotations. In a previous post, you indicated how to arrive at Point Two. Do your annotations reflect this same assertion? Review your Point Three Annotations. Do your Gaussians show how you answered my previous post?

 

Now go to the thin lines.

 

What 'thing' forms the various 'points' on the medium lines? How does one arrive at this 'thing' through Volume? Do your lines reflect this?

 

Sloppy annotation (irrespective of intent) serves no purpose in an environment of purposeful learning.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at your chart at the beginning of your annotations. In a previous post, you indicated how to arrive at Point Two. Do your annotations reflect this same assertion? Review your Point Three Annotations. Do your Gaussians show how you answered my previous post?

Now go to the thin lines.

What 'thing' forms the various 'points' on the medium lines? How does one arrive at this 'thing' through Volume? Do your lines reflect this?

Sloppy annotation (irrespective of intent) serves no purpose in an environment of purposeful learning.

- Spydertrader

 

Spydertrader,

Thanks for your feedback.

I redrew the annotations and Gaussians lines the way I understood should be done from your questions. I redo only the first part so that if there is still mistakes, I have less chart info to figure out where the mistakes are located.

Please let me know if I am on the right track.

ES5min10072010_take2.thumb.png.0ce3234378560e31a35e12c19bf3c150.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please let me know if I am on the right track.

 

How do you get to 'Point Two' of something that moves down?

 

How did YOU arrive at point Two?

 

Do you feel this is correct?

 

 

Now. The 'Points' of one container find themselves created by some 'thing' formed by a faster level container.

 

What is that thing?

 

Forget the chart for a moment.

 

Start at the 'fine' level.

 

Pull out some blank sheets of paper, and focus on drawing volume gaussians - without any charts around. Move from Point One to Point Two to Point Three and onto the completion of the order of events. Now, do the non-dominant container. Do the dominant container again.

 

What did you just build?

 

Three things built one larger thing.

 

Continue the process in a fractal fashion.

 

Go back to your charts and note where you need to polish.

 

HTH.

 

Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cnms2 thank you for the link and advise it will help me understand better. Spydertrader I was drawing the Gaussian after and not before the price reaction. I will study more than try another post to see if I am learning. Thanks to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before going back to the chart, let me answer your questions.

How do you get to 'Point Two' of something that moves down?

How did YOU arrive at point Two?

Spydertrader

Point 2 is at the peak/highest volume of R2R.

 

Now. The 'Points' of one container find themselves created by some 'thing' formed by a faster level container.

What is that thing?

Points 1, 2 and 3 of a faster level container creates the slower level container.

For down move, faster level R2R2B2R is needed to create the slower level container.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your Medium level gaussians (I assume their are medium as I see no 'thick' level) do not accurately represent the market condition (from around 1:15 [on your chart] forward)

 

Thanks for your feedback, Spydertrader. Today the market invalidated my previous B2B traverse. It was a 2B traverse.

 

Attached is my view for today, Thursday 7 Oct 2010. Annotated 3 levels of containers and gaussians.

 

TIA for any feedback/comments.

5aa7103842a30_ES2010_10_07.thumb.png.cd280744fa5cbfe50a8fbed64d5ce1c3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before going back to the chart, let me answer your questions.

Point 2 is at the peak/highest volume of R2R.

.

Incorrect. The second R of the R2R will not necessarily be greater volume than the first, so p2 will not always be at the highest volume of the R2R. P2 is at the highest point reached by price (assuming long) before price leaves the R2R tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the chart for a moment.

Start at the 'fine' level.

Pull out some blank sheets of paper, and focus on drawing volume gaussians - without any charts around. Move from Point One to Point Two to Point Three and onto the completion of the order of events. Now, do the non-dominant container. Do the dominant container again.

Here's my Gaussians drawing on the paper.

Please let me know if it's incorrect.

Thanks.

gaussiansDrawing.thumb.png.74f33123a9f17c536334a7138d9bb2f7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrect. see attached

Thank you for the drawing. Now I know my initial understanding of Gaussians was wrong

I will have to review other people's charts over the weekend to learn to draw my charts correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be considered a useful drill to erase most of the price portion of a bunch of charts from the past, leaving the first few bars at open and the last few bars at close, draw the gaussians and then try to fill in what price did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking one step at the time and trying to draw Gaussians to match with trend lines for 10/8/2010.

 

You might want to stay focused on yesterday's chart (first with the morning portion) before moving onto more complex examples.

 

Crawl. Walk. Run. Then, Fly.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to stay focused on yesterday's chart (first with the morning portion) before moving onto more complex examples.

Crawl. Walk. Run. Then, Fly.

- Spydertrader

Thanks for the advice.

That is what I've planned for my weekend homework a long with studying other people's charts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my previous post seems to have vanished, so apologies if this appears twice.

In order to get the gaussian thing down pat, would it be a good drill to take a bunch of charts, erase the price portion except the beginning and end bars and then try to fill in what price did just from the volume pane... thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my previous post seems to have vanished, so apologies if this appears twice.

In order to get the gaussian thing down pat, would it be a good drill to take a bunch of charts, erase the price portion except the beginning and end bars and then try to fill in what price did just from the volume pane... thanks

go to refinement thread page #264 look for gaussian drill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your advices.

Here's my redraw of the Thursday 10/7/2010 chart.

There are two areas with brown boxes on the volume pane which I am not sure drawn correctly.

Any feed back would be greatly appreciated.

ES5min10072010_reworked.thumb.png.4277b62bb213f2c5c3c61edfd6d6d1bd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my redraw of the Thursday 10/7/2010 chart.

 

Let's stay focused on that down container (for the time being) in an effort to make absolutely certain we have the ability to accurately, and consistantly, annotate our Gaussians the exact same way on all fractals.

 

Look away from the charts (for a moment) and pull out some blank paper. Write down what you know with respect to the order of events.

 

If your Gaussians show you R2R, where are you with respect to the order of events?

 

If your Gaussians show you R2R 2B, where are you with respect to the order of events?

 

If your Gaussians show you R2R 2B 2R, where are you with respect to the order of events (and what then do you want to see to tell you this order of events has ended)?

 

Since we know all markets exist on a fractal basis, the same exact paradigm for where one sits currently (with respect to the right side of the market) and what must come next (with respect to the order of events) develops on each and every line thickness annotated on our chart. In other words, that which we do for 'tapes' we must also do for 'traverses' and 'channels.'

 

What else do we know? Our Order of Events marks the minimum requirement needed to complete a given fractal. While no maximum exists, each component of the order of events must develop in the exact same fashion as the minimum level required. In other words (using our example of the down container), a decelerating medium level (thickness) black Gaussian Line means something - and it always means the exact same thing - irrespective of the number of times it appears on a chart.

 

Now, look at you down container anotations ...

 

1. What does a decelerating medium level (thickness) black Gaussian Line mean in a Down Container?

 

2. Do your annotations reflect the meaning of a decelerating medium level (thickness) black Gaussian Line?

 

Since we know the market often provides more than the minimum required for a given level container, something must indicate to the trader that the market plans to go beyond the minimum.

 

1. What are these events?

 

2. What must come next when they develop?

 

Lastly, once we have the above all sorted out, we can then work to 'clean' up our nesting of the various fractals within each other. To do this, we need to completely understand where the various fractals come together, and where they split apart.

 

Begin with the slowest fractal (channel) and move faster.

 

Using Volume only for the following questions ....

 

1. How does one arrive at Point Two of a Channel?

 

2. How does one arrive at Point Two of a Traverse?

 

3. How does one arrive at Point Two of a Tape?

 

Moving between 'points' on a given fractal results from a completed Order of Events of a faster fractal. Therefore, each fractal nests within another. Take a moment and draw (on paper) a channel Point Two (again using Gaussians [Volume] only). Then annotate the faster fractal which must complete in order to arive at the channel Point Two. Do the same for the Traverse and Tape - without going beyond a Channel Point Two.

 

Note where all three fractals come together and where all three fractals diverge.

 

Do not move beyond annotating another chart until you can see hwere you placed errors within the down container currently under discussion.

 

Do not think for one moment you are alone in this journey. No doubt, a number of newer folks (and even a number of folks who have studied this for quite some time) have the same problem you currently experience.

 

Anyone interested should feel welcome to contribute to this discussion.

 

Again, the goal here is to develop both accuracy and precision with respect to annotations.

 

I hope you find the above information helpful.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Spydertrader,

 

Please see attached snip from Thursday 7 Oct 2010. I have a question regarding matching gaussian to trend line. Is it possible that 2R B2B gaussian happened within one bar? I don't see any other increasing black volume to annotate B2B gaussian for that green up traverse.

 

Thanks.

5aa71038ad6f1_ES2010_10.07snip.thumb.png.dd88127501e4d436fe0f15e142d941bf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spydertrader,

Thank you for your patience and taking your time explaining to me how to recognize my errors. Either my understanding of the nesting of different levels of Gaussians is incorrect OR my translation of this understanding to the actual drawing is wrong.

So let me make sure my understanding of the nesting is correct by answering your questions without looking at any chart first.

If your Gaussians show you R2R, where are you with respect to the order of events?

I have a new order of events and point 1 and 2 have been developed for this new sequence.

If your Gaussians show you R2R 2B, where are you with respect to the order of events?

This is a retrace from point2 to point3 of the new sequence.

If your Gaussians show you R2R 2B 2R, where are you with respect to the order of events (and what then do you want to see to tell you this order of events has ended)?

I have point 3 of the new sequence and I need a 2B 2B (decreasing black and then increasing black) to know this sequence has been ended. If I see 2B2R instead, the market is signaling this sequence will continue.

What else do we know? Our Order of Events marks the minimum requirement needed to complete a given fractal. While no maximum exists, each component of the order of events must develop in the exact same fashion as the minimum level required.

Please correct me if I misunderstood this statement.

For minimum, I need B2B2R2B to complete a sequence. But this sequence can continue with 2R2B2R2B...?

Begin with the slowest fractal (channel) and move faster.

If I zoom out and look at the bigger picture, I see this.

I will zoom into each line if this is correct.

10072010_GaussiansChannel.png.3f4339350747cbf4b3d75ef57a65e443.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This chart from Spyder, may be helpful to understand the fractal nature of Gaussians.

 

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2205173

 

Also see the discussion for the context : pages 1630-1636.

 

Forums - Iterative Refinement

 

Spyder, I guess you would allow.

 

Gucci,

Thanks for the links.

How can you pick out a particular discussion from such a large thread? You must have some kind of indexing into that thread?

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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