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 volume reaches a trough at 2, the BO of the RTL. . The trough of volume coincides with the BO of the RTL."

 

I assume that's Jack... Is this an indirect way of saying you disagree with Sypdertrader's comments above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to keep the discussion about fractal nature of the Gaussians afloat, here are some questions. All questions refer to the chart of Spyder quoted above. All times eastern and end of the bar.

 

1. Why does the sequence for the thin lines (thing, goat, tape, whatever) end at

10:30 ?

 

Enjoy.

For the purpose of clarification,I think that I am correct in saying that the thin line sequence does NOT end at 10:30. It continues, 2r2b2r2b, hidden underneath the medium and thick lines lines.

example.jpg.e6f3382daf51d7ff4e6b4281db579e89.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume that's Jack... Is this an indirect way of saying you disagree with Sypdertrader's comments above?

I dont see any disagreement, an illustration of your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purpose of clarification,I think that I am correct in saying that the thin line sequence does NOT end at 10:30. It continues, 2r2b2r2b, hidden underneath the medium and thick lines lines.

 

 

 

I was talking about purposeful annotations one can and should do. Feel free to add all the lines you wish. In this thread Spyder has made a statement about faster fractals needing their completion before slower fractals doing their job. The chart I posted illustrated this notion crisp and clear.

 

 

 

(Let your winners run and cut your losers short, think about it... only this time the market does it for you.)

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was talking about purposeful annotations one can do. Feel free to add all the lines you wish. In this thread Spyder has made a statement about faster fractals needing their completion before slower fractals doing their job. The chart I posted illustrated this notion crisp and clear.

Your post suggested that the thin line sequence ended at 10:30. For me that was misleading, because I don't think that it did. If I am incorrect then please explain why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post suggested that the thin line sequence ended at 10:30. For me that was misleading, because I don't think that it did. If I am incorrect then please explain why.

 

OK. First of all I'm sorry for misleading you. I apologize.

 

Second of all, you didn't read the stuff in the parenthesis, did you?

 

Third of all, at the end of the completion of the faster fractal sequence, what is left for you to look for? You work with nested fractals,don't you? So answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at the end of the completion of the faster fractal sequence, what is left for you to look for? You work with nested fractals,don't you? So answer the question.

 

I always used to think that at the end of a completed fractal, one expects the same thing but in the opposite direction.

 

--

Innersky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back to the drawing board in another attempt to absorb the wisdom of this thread. There's some great stuff here.

 

The attachment starts from the ES daily high on 10/11/07. Can anyone tell me if:

1) all of the thin-weight containers are on the same fractal?

2) the thin-weight containers are fanned when and where appropriate?

3) the gauss annotations are correct?

 

Also, a link to a good discussion of ve's would be helpful. What I remember is that a ve implies another go-round on the volume cycle (r2r2b2r2B2R), but I'm not sure I've seen in precisely defined, even after rereading the entire thread. Thanks for your help.

basicqs1.thumb.gif.1f729a9b9513eaa5ac9f43ae54f3869e.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always used to think that at the end of a completed fractal, one expects the same thing but in the opposite direction.

 

--

Innersky

 

You are right. But I was talking about FASTER FRACTAL. Do you think there might be any difference?

 

How can one know, that the market is building the faster fractal thing???

 

Answer on a silver plate:

 

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2170804&highlight=faster+AND+fractal#post2170804

 

Enjoy.

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to keep the discussion about fractal nature of the Gaussians afloat, here are some questions. All questions refer to the chart of Spyder quoted above. All times eastern and end of the bar.

 

1. Why does the sequence for the thin lines (thing, goat, tape, whatever) end at

10:30 ?

 

2. Why is the trough for B2B for the medium lines (thing, goat, faster fractal traverse, whatever) located at

10:45 and not at 10:35 ?

 

3. Why is the trough for B2B for the thick lines (thing, goat, trading fractal traverse, whatever) located at

11:10 and not at 10:55 ?

 

4. Why did Spyder tell ehorn he should be able to see three levels of Gaussians here ?(use the chart of Spyder of the previous day)

 

5. Why did the market formed something on the price panel at those B2Bs ?

 

6. Why did Spyder put this blue point 2 at the the end of the last (thick) B2B ?

 

7. Why does this site suck so much forcing me to repost this for the third time because of some silly time limit ? :)

 

Enjoy.

 

#1. Order of events completed on thin line fractal(fastest fractal shown with lines)

 

#2.The trough(10:45) location is the first decreasing red(non-dominant) bar after thin line fractal order of events completion and is immediately followed by an increasing black (dominant) volume bar.The 10:35 bar is decreasing black volume bar but price is still contained in the taped two bar formation therefore still dominant.

#3.Same reasons for trough location as was given to question 2 but for nesting one slower fractal.The 10:55 bar is increasing black volume bar plus price is contained in the taped two bar formation therefore it's still dominant . #4.The orders of events was stretched out with no non-dominant order of events(faster fractal)?

#5. Because of the non-dominant volume bar which broke out of the taped two bar formation

#6.Because there was no non-dominant order of events completed during the last dominant order of events(faster fractal). # 7. lol .Comments welcome

Edited by patrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 10:25 bar is the first close outside the skinny b2b green tape, giving us the red skinny tape 2r. The 10:30 bar closes outside the red skinny tape, forming the 2nd green skinny tape, taking us from p3 of the skinny tape b2b2r2b sequence, giving us the olive rtl. This is the rtl of the medium B2B. To be consistent across all fractals, price needs to close OUTSIDE this olive rtl in order to reach p3 of the medium B2B2R2B container. However, price fails to close outside the olive rtl so I suspect that the medium 2R drawn to 11:10 is incorrect. Perhaps 11:20 is medium p2.....

example.jpg.48d5929788d98ad30b90b26a7dc4d074.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right. But I was talking about FASTER FRACTAL. Do you think there might be any difference?

 

How can one know, that the market is building the faster fractal thing???

 

Answer on a silver plate:

 

Forums - Iterative Refinement

 

Enjoy.

 

While I do agree with this, on the chart we're talking about there is no such thing as the previous down tape/traverse/channel/goat of the same weight.

 

--

Innersky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I do agree with this, on the chart we're talking about there is no such thing as the previous down tape/traverse/channel/goat of the same weight.

 

--

Innersky

 

I do not understand what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fastest fractal we consider is the tape, correct?

 

 

If you can find a faster one, then go for it. Fractals arent UFOs. Think. What is the pattern we are talking about? Ask questions and try to FIND the answers. Volume=herd. Price change= money. Market= dictatorship. Fractals=nature. Non dominant= wrong side. Dominant= right side. a.s.o.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not understand what you mean.

 

The post on ET you refer to, treeline says : "We know this because Points 2 and 3 of the faster fractal traverse occur inside the confines of the pink ES-only down traverse."

 

In the chart you refer to here, there is no such comparable thing as "the pink ES-only down traverse".

example.jpg.8f49de222d32795c9c36e6369641181a.jpg

fasterfractals.jpg.328fe0d93072cb9588cbef024680ca38.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The post on ET you refer to, treeline says : "We know this because Points 2 and 3 of the faster fractal traverse occur inside the confines of the pink ES-only down traverse."

 

In the chart you refer to here, there is no such comparable thing as "the pink ES-only down traverse".

 

Really? Try to stop concentrating on the colours and start concentrating on the POINTS (123) and INSIDE and CONFINES. Fractals NEST.

 

Another one for you.

 

Why is the slope of the blue line on the chart (I mean the chart with mysterious blue point 2 this little bastid Spyder put there :)) shallower than the slope of the green line?

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Try to stop concentrating on the colours and start concentrating on the POINTS (123) and INSIDE and CONFINES. Fractals NEST.

 

Another one for you.

 

Why is the slope of the blue line on the chart (I mean the chart with mysterious blue point 2 this little bastid Spyder put there :)) shallower than the slope of the green line?

 

I try not to concentrate on colours but on fractals of the same weight.

 

Because the lowest fractal (cfr the blue point 2) isn't complete yet. We still expect point three and then an FTT on this fractal before it can complete.

 

--

Innesky

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.