The Price / Volume Relationship

[wind_ 11]

  Spydertrader said:

"How can you (or anybody following along with this discussion) know with 100% certainty that the down container, which began on 10-13-2010 (at 14:15 Eastern Time), must have ended at some point in time today (10-15-2010)?"

 

When we see BO of container's RTL with increasing volume, we know that the container has ended.

[Tams 20]

  zt379 said:

with BO of the RTL ?

 

  Zan-shin said:

We can only know that with 100% certainty when price exceeds the high of 14:15 on 10-13-2010.

 

  wind_ said:

When we see BO of container's RTL with increasing volume, we know that the container has ended.

 

 

can you post a chart with lines and arrows to illustrate? ...so that we can be on the same page?

 

if this knowledge is important enough to learn,

and you are serious enough to want to be certain about getting it absolutely right,

I am sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to whip up a few lines and arrows on a chart.

[Zan-shin 10]

deleted..............

Edited October 15, 2010 by Zan-shin

[Spydertrader 10]

  Zan-shin said:

We can only know that with 100% certainty when price exceeds the high of 14:15 on 10-13-2010.

 

Bingo!!

 

Now certainly, we can know before this point in time, but only after developing the knowledge, skills and experience to do so.

 

Once the market indicates it has provided a trader with a known entity you can then, and only then, begin the learning process - step by step - without jumping ahead.

 

- Spydertrader

[Breakeven 10]

  Spydertrader said:

 

The market begins a new cycle (for all fractals) at 14:15 (Eastern Time) yesterday (10-13-2010). Start the annotation process from that point in time.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

"There is only one problem in life: How do you go about the process of solving problems."

 

Thank you for the starting point!

 

I think my foremost problem when I go about applying a concept or a "reason" to market annotations is that I always feel there are too many variables swirling around. It feels like trying to solve X=Y+Z where only one specific and unknown value is the correct answer for X. So I end up for example trying to apply a reason why a Tape formed in a specific way, but that one has a lateral (another variable to me most of the time). Well ok, I will determine how that lateral effects the Tape, but of course I don't know for certain why the Tape is formed that way. Then the downward spiral begins :rofl:

 

It is amazing how damn hard it is for me to find two apples to compare. And being certain both things are apples is beyond reach. So, I hope with the starting point you graciously provided to lock a few knowns in place.

 

I am very happy you chose this particular area to give a known starting point. The first move down will almost always lead to me jumping fractals. About the only way for me to avoid fractal jumping in this case is to know my up Channel is correct and complete, so my down Traverse can't be complete until crossing (closing outside?) the Channel RTL. I am sure more precision is possible and I want to attain that precision.

 

On this chart I have deleted my Tape gaussians because two of them don't quite seem to work the way I drew them. I also deleted many of the finer lines. I know we should start with the 10 cases and work upwards, but in this case the Tapes are giving me trouble so I hope to work from the top down.

 

What I think I know on this chart:

1. The Green carryover up Channel is correct.(?)

 

2. The down Traverse can not be complete until closing outside the Channel RTL.(?)

 

What I am hoping to beg answers to:

1. Can it be known the Traverse is not complete without the up Channel RTL (more precision)?

 

2. Did I still manage to jump fractals with the gaussians shown?

 

3. For a Pt 2, do you normally use the geometric placement or the actual point where you end the x2x?

 

Sorry for the length.

 

TIA

[gucci 10]

  Breakeven said:

I want to thank everyone for the discussion of the "three levels" chart snipit. I have spent an inordinate amount of time studying this without success. I hope that with Patraders answers I can find some resolution.

 

Gucci asked: 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 ?

 

But, my question has always been: Why is the medium B2B not at 10:25? Which is the point where the gaussians "should" (haha) nest. See attached.

 

Ok. Here is what I see in the chart. The question on the table is why the trough of the medium lines is not at 10:25.

 

So see it this way. Let us assume you put your trough for medium lines initially at 10:25. So far so good.

 

What must come next?

 

Increasing black volume. At 10:30 you get it. So far so good again. On the price pane you connect the start of the sequence with the low of the price bar at 10:25 in order to get your container for the medium volume B2B sequence.

 

Now what must come next? Decreasing volume with price moving through RTL of the price container the market created with its B2B volume sequence. What did come? Decreasing volume which failed to move the price through the RTL of the medium container. So we can not be at the point 2 of the medium sequence yet. What is the logical consequence ?

 

Try to think now about what the volume trough at 10:55 indicated. And what happened in the price pane and volume pane at 11:05 and 11:10.

 

HTH.

 

Do not forget: three movements for the price and four movements for the volume This is where overlapping of trends somewhere should happen.

[Zan-shin 10]

Here's a nogap chart from P1 at 14:15 on the 13th Oct. I have accelerated medium rtl's after a VE and decelerated the rtl's (fanned) after bo with decreasing volume. I expected a long medium container from 15:05 (green triangle) but this was proven wrong at 10:20 on the 15th when price descended below the low of 15:05, unless my long thin container is actually medium. I read from earlier in the thread that volume determines the appropriate gaussian thickness but I can't see how. If anyone has figured out how then please help.........

[savarez 10]

  gucci said:

Ok. Here is what I see in the chart. The question on the table is why the trough of the medium lines is not at 10:25.

Thank you for your thoughts but I fail to see how your post answers the question. Looking at the black peaks they decrease to a minimum at 10:20 followed by a sequence of increasing peaks. So it would seem logical to put the trough at 10:25. And I am still mystified how we can have a medium gaussian sequence all contained inside the rtl that defines the medium b2b. Perhaps the chart clip is from a thread that does not adhere to the conventions described in THIS thread......

[gucci 10]

  savarez said:

Thank you for your thoughts but I fail to see how your post answers the question. Looking at the black peaks they decrease to a minimum at 10:20 followed by a sequence of increasing peaks. So it would seem logical to put the trough at 10:25. And I am still mystified how we can have a medium gaussian sequence all contained inside the rtl that defines the medium b2b. Perhaps the chart clip is from a thread that does not adhere to the conventions described in THIS thread......

 

This is not only about the volume, but also about the price. Hence price-volume relationship. The troughs of the volume correspond to the points on the price pane. If you have 2R on the volume pane, this 2R should do something to the price and trend lines in order to be part of the sequence on your fractal.

[savarez 10]

  gucci said:

This is not only about the volume, but also about the price. Hence price-volume relationship. The troughs of the volume correspond to the points on the price pane. If you have 2R on the volume pane, this 2R should do something to the price and trend lines in order to be part of the sequence on your fractal.

That is obvious. What is still not clear is why the B2B trough is at 10:45.

[Spydertrader 10]

  Breakeven said:

Can it be known the Traverse is not complete without the up Channel RTL (more precision)?

 

Yes.

 

  Breakeven said:

Did I still manage to jump fractals with the gaussians shown?

 

Yes.

 

  Breakeven said:

For a Pt 2, do you normally use the geometric placement or the actual point where you end the x2x?

 

Actual Point.

 

- Spydertrader

[gucci 10]

  savarez said:

That is obvious. What is still not clear is why the B2B trough is at 10:45.

 

 

Well, if that was obvious for you then why did you suggest that my first response didn't provide the answer to the question on the table?

 

I guess the next answer is obvious as well.

Edited October 16, 2010 by gucci

[cnms2 10]

  Breakeven said:

I want to thank everyone for the discussion of the "three levels" chart snipit. I have spent an inordinate amount of time studying this without success. I hope that with Patraders answers I can find some resolution.

 

Gucci asked: 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 ?

 

But, my question has always been: Why is the medium B2B not at 10:25? Which is the point where the gaussians "should" (haha) nest. See attached.

A quick interpretation.

[cnms2 10]

  cnms2 said:

A quick interpretation.

A closer look at volume peaks, and at peaks of peaks.

[cnms2 10]

  cnms2 said:

A closer look at volume peaks, and at peaks of peaks.

A closer look at the two price bars.

[zt379 10]

  gucci said:

Ok. Here is what I see in the chart. The question on the table is why the trough of the medium lines is not at 10:25.

 

So see it this way. Let us assume you put your trough for medium lines initially at 10:25. So far so good.

 

What must come next?

 

Increasing black volume. At 10:30 you get it. So far so good again. On the price pane you connect the start of the sequence with the low of the price bar at 10:25 in order to get your container for the medium volume B2B sequence.

 

Now what must come next? Decreasing volume with price moving through RTL of the price container the market created with its B2B volume sequence.

What did come? Decreasing volume which failed to move the price through the RTL of the medium container.

So we can not be at the point 2 of the medium sequence yet.

What is the logical consequence ?

 

Try to think now about what the volume trough at 10:55 indicated. And what happened in the price pane and volume pane at 11:05 and 11:10.

 

HTH.

 

Do not forget: three movements for the price and four movements for the volume This is where overlapping of trends somewhere should happen.

 

Highlighted in bold, you say we cannot be at the end of the medium B2B, it's P2, until price BO of the B2B container (Olive) with increasing volume.

 

As price did not BO of it's B2B container (Olive), why is there a medium 2R gaussian ?

 

Why isn't that medium 2R a thin 2r gausian

ie: b2b2r2b 2r(at10.45)2b 2r(at11.10)2b ?

 

Or the thick B2B is not instead a medium B2B ?

 

Kind Regards

Edited October 16, 2010 by zt379

[saturo 10]

  cnms2 said:

A quick interpretation.

 

It looks like you are simply using 1 additional faster fractal level instead of 3.

 

Thick (trend)

Medium (traverse)

Thin (tape)

Dotted (bbt) bbt = "building block of tape"

 

An alternative way think of it:

 

Thin goes the minimum volume sequence plus a 2R 2B .. so B2B 2R 2B 2R 2B - this creates an accelerated RTL.

 

Medium joins on the last thin 2R. Medium's 2R breaks accelerated RTL.

 

Thick 2B is WMCN.. capping it with an FTT

 

Edit: Is this correct?

Edited October 16, 2010 by saturo

[Breakeven 10]

  gucci said:

What must come next?

 

Increasing black volume. At 10:30 you get it. So far so good again. On the price pane you connect the start of the sequence with the low of the price bar at 10:25 in order to get your container for the medium volume B2B sequence.

 

 

Yes, this is exactly what I see.

 

  gucci said:

Now what must come next? Decreasing volume with price moving through RTL of the price container the market created with its B2B volume sequence. What did come? Decreasing volume which failed to move the price through the RTL of the medium container. So we can not be at the point 2 of the medium sequence yet. What is the logical consequence ?

 

Agreed, this can not be Pt 2 of the medium sequence.

 

Two things make logical sense to me here:

 

1. The medium B2B can not yet be complete. I arrive at this by WWT (what wasn't that), as it was not the 2R the B2B must still be forming.

Or

2. The medium B2B was started in the wrong location.

 

I know #2 is obviously the correct conclusion, I am just stuck on the why.

 

  gucci said:

Try to think now about what the volume trough at 10:55 indicated. And what happened in the price pane and volume pane at 11:05 and 11:10.

 

10:55 appears the same to me as 10:35.

 

11:05 and 11:10 form a down container which fail to move through the RTL just as happened at 10:45. However, both bars of the 11:05 container are decreasing volume unlike the previous.

 

  gucci said:

HTH.

 

Do not forget: three movements for the price and four movements for the volume This is where overlapping of trends somewhere should happen.

 

I really feel like I am being dense and missing something obvious, not that it would be the first time.

 

Thank you very much for the comments!

[cnms2 10]

  cnms2 said:

A quick interpretation.

This looks more balanced.

[cnms2 10]

  cnms2 said:

This looks more balanced.

This looks nice .

[Breakeven 10]

  Spydertrader said:

More precision?

Yes.

 

Jumped fractals?

Yes.

 

 

Geometric or actual?

Actual Point.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thanks very much for the response. 1 and 3 are what I wanted to hear

 

I am also happy to learn that I still jumped fractals. Mainly because, as I said, this is the kind of market action that always causes me trouble so maybe I can learn something. Also because what follows the chart I posted made my head hurt attempting to reconcile it with the annotations I had in place.

 

My first inclination is that I completed things too quickly. This is usually how I fail, and what follows my annotated Traverse appears to me to be an up Tape then down Tape. So, by WWT my original Traverse must be a Tape.

 

Let me chew on this for a bit and I will get a new chart posted.

 

Thanks again!

[Zan-shin 10]

tapes make traverses make channels, and their gaussian relationship

[Breakeven 10]

  Zan-shin said:

tapes make traverses make channels, and their gaussian relationship

 

Thanks for the chart.

 

The caption on your chart says: "Each Tape is made of three "subtapes", each constructed from the 10 cases". While that seems to be the case on your chart, it is not always the case. Reference recent chart sections from Spyder attached.

 

I suppose it comes dwon to contextual differences?

[Breakeven 10]

  Spydertrader said:

Jumped Fractals?

Yes.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Spyder,

 

I had planned for this chart to be a reworked version of my previous chart. But seeing as how many possibilities there are in that area for me to make mistakes it may be best to move forward a bit before going back. Also, I do not want to give the impression that I am just slinging crap at this until something sticks.

 

This chart is the period directly following the last, 10/14 pm-10/15am. This area had me questioning my annotations on the previous chart due to what is marked as an up Tape. I feel this has to be a Tape and because of what follows, a down Traverse could not have preceded this area. Normally, I would just correct my fractals and move on but that does not aid in learning. Like you said, things need to be precise. This time I will figure out why I was wrong.

 

For the up Tape there is a nice B2B which gets me outside the previous down Tape. A lateral formation creates the 2R. As price exits the lateral the market provides 2B. This is followed by a down Tape making a lower low telling me that my Traverse could not have been complete before now. Does this sound sensible and have I arrived at the correct fractals for this area?

 

Also, I have a more mechanical type question if you don't mind. For an IBGS, I have always tried to take the name literally. Anytime I encounter one it tells me that a gaussian line has changed direction on some fractal. Am I being too rigid in this view?

 

Thanks again for your time!

[savarez 10]

  Zan-shin said:

tapes make traverses make channels, and their gaussian relationship

As a general principle this sounds fine but in reality, the market simply does not behave in a uniform 3*3 relationship as in your theoretical illustration.