The Price / Volume Relationship

[gucci 10]

Thank you for the hint. When the smallest containers are made more carefully (widen for closes within the container, starting with the 9:15 bar), the gaussians are much clearer.

 

If the attached annotations are more correct, I still don't understand why the thick container is over and done with at the end of the third medium container. Is it that the ve's of the thick thing caused by the third medium container are at a higher volume than pt 2(thick)? Maybe reannotating the first medium with newfound care will show enough examples at the thin level for differentiation.

 

 

Now you just have to think in terms of fractals. Thick thing is nothing more than a medium thing on a larger fractal. And medium thing is nothing more than one of the three thin things of a medium thing on a larger fractal.

[cnms2 10]

... When the smallest containers are made more carefully (widen for closes within the container, ...

Spydertrader's 10 cases (Tapes) post looks only at bars, without mentioning their closes. So, I think that although those closes offer useful information about the market's sentiment, they're not significant for tape drawing.

 

[gucci 10]

Have fun.

 

You'll find the volume pane for this chart here.

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/22588d1287021313-price-volume-relationship-chart10-12.jpg

[savarez 10]

Dax follow-up. I hope it can be helpful.

Thanks for the chart. This helps to clarify several issues I have been struggling to resolve. The 15:55 bar VE's the magenta LTL, so it cannot be an FTT of the magenta container. However, it finishes the gaussian sequence for the magenta. The B2B (for the next sequence on the same fractal) starts on the same bar so the VE hasn't caused price to "go around again" and our B2B doesn't start on an FTT. So clearly not all p1's are FTT's. Thank you for your help.

[nkhoi 10]

Friday 11-5-2010 5m chart

[saturo 10]

See question in chart snippet...

[Ezzy 10]

See question in chart snippet...

 

If you're looking for a traverse FTT, then the tapes for that leg must be completed. Where is your tape point 3?

[saturo 10]

If you're looking for a traverse FTT, then the tapes for that leg must be completed. Where is your tape point 3?

 

See attached...

 

There are 3 tape level BOs... and what appears to be an FTT. I don't understand why the FTT I marked in my original drawing isn't the traverse level FTT.

 

Edit: the pt 1, pt 2 and pt3 are for the traverse in the snippet... sorry for the confusion.

[gucci 10]

See question in chart snippet...

 

The market creates an FTT while moving from RTL to LTL, right? How does the market move from RTL to LTL? In a dominant or non-dominant fashion? Now look at the bar you highlighted. HTH.

 

Edit: Now, it is not only about the price but also about the volume

[gucci 10]

Fractal drill. Enjoy.

[Corey 10]

See question in chart snippet...

I think I understand your question, look at my order of events, anything with 'looking' is not coming into the present yet. My guest is at your orange traverse I was waiting for 4b to complete then 4c to complete then 4 to complete, lots of waiting I know!

[Ezzy 10]

See attached...

 

There are 3 tape level BOs... and what appears to be an FTT. I don't understand why the FTT I marked in my original drawing isn't the traverse level FTT.

 

Edit: the pt 1, pt 2 and pt3 are for the traverse in the snippet... sorry for the confusion.

 

I see Gucci already covered this one for you. Put another way, price showed you a pt3, volume didn't.

[Corey 10]

See question in chart snippet...

dont know what happen to my post i might have to resend it

[Corey 10]

morning 11-08-2010 like a clock so far

[203NG 10]

Fractal drill. Enjoy.

 

First question: "Why should one know, 35 minutes into the day, that our point two is not on the cards yet?".

Gucci, is that because the increasing red volume that occurs is on a bar that is a pennant break out, which does not change dominance (from black to red)?

 

Question 2 and 3 have me stumped, but I will keep thinking ...

[gucci 10]

First question: "Why should one know, 35 minutes into the day, that our point two is not on the cards yet?".

Gucci, is that because the increasing red volume that occurs is on a bar that is a pennant break out, which does not change dominance (from black to red)?

 

Question 2 and 3 have me stumped, but I will keep thinking ...

 

Think in terms of "INSIDE". Why do you think I posted the chart with the rest of the previous day?

[203NG 10]

Think in terms of "INSIDE". Why do you think I posted the chart with the rest of the previous day?

 

The FBP breakout bar is outside the last dominant tape of the up traverse (hope my fractal descriptions are accurate), but is still INSIDE the up traverse-container carried over from the previous day (with whitish trend line and light green point 3).

 

A point 2 must always break the rtl of the previous trend, so that's why our point 2 is not on the cards yet?

 

With regard to questions 2 and 3:

 

I would have annotated the increasing red Gaussian up to the last red bar after the annotated pink point 2 (I think the time is 10:15), and then the point 3 on the black ibgs at 10:25 which you say is wrong. It is not clear to me, but the only thing I can think of is that although we have a point 2 with red dominance established, and thereafter an up-tape that breaks the rtl of the down tape, the volume is not perhaps 2b, in the sense it must be DECLINING BLACK after the R2R. This occurs on the way to the actual point 3 that you have annotated. But the 10:20 black bar IS declining, so I don't find my argument very convincing, but I don't have any other.

[moosie 10]

I've redone 10-13 to 10-15 several times now, and consistently end up in the same place (attached). A review of the newly posted drills, and the elitetrader.com discussion of VE's will probably yield new questions, but in the meantime any pointers to errors in my annotations would be greatly appreciated.

[gucci 10]

The FBP breakout bar is outside the last dominant tape of the up traverse (hope my fractal descriptions are accurate), but is still INSIDE the up traverse-container carried over from the previous day (with whitish trend line and light green point 3).

 

A point 2 must always break the rtl of the previous trend, so that's why our point 2 is not on the cards yet?

 

 

A point 2 must BE outside of the previous thing RTL. AND it MUST be preceded by X2X sequence of the volume. One of these conditions wasn’t fulfilled at the time in questionon on the trading fractal.

 

 

With regard to questions 2 and 3:

 

I would have annotated the increasing red Gaussian up to the last red bar after the annotated pink point 2 (I think the time is 10:15), and then the point 3 on the black ibgs at 10:25 which you say is wrong.

 

I didn’t say it is wrong. I said we do not have it at 10:25. When annotating REAL TIME we DO have a point 3 at 10:25. So your annotations would be right. But as future comes into the present the market corrects them and shows you the actual point 3.

 

 

It is not clear to me, but the only thing I can think of is that although we have a point 2 with red dominance established, and thereafter an up-tape that breaks the rtl of the down tape, the volume is not perhaps 2b, in the sense it must be DECLINING BLACK after the R2R.

This occurs on the way to the actual point 3 that you have annotated. But the 10:20 black bar IS declining, so I don't find my argument very convincing, but I don't have any other.

 

The market moved to its point 2 (first dominant leg) creating the faster fractal thing underway. Such being the case you should anticipate the second dominant leg (2R) being created the similar way. So annotating REAL TIME at 10:25 (your provisional point 3)you anticipate the second dominant leg. This second dominant leg should be created by a faster fractal thing. So there is no way you should look for a signal of change at 10:30-10:40 area. Now try to work forward from here using the same logic in conjuction with volume sequences and you will also understand why we do not have a faster fractal thing annotated from 10:25 onward. (see the chart with the clue)

 

HTH.

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/22827d1289141533-price-volume-relationship-drill.jpg

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/22828d1289141545-price-volume-relationship-clue.jpg

[emac 10]

This is a response to some specific questions asked by one of the users.

 

Hi Gucci,

 

Thanks for putting the charts and clarification. On your chart notes, you mentioned that a bar that VE the LTL would suggest a new point 3. Can you explain further why that is so in the context of the same chart you are describing ?

 

TQVM

 

[Zan-shin 10]

The market moved to its point 2 (first dominant leg) creating the faster fractal thing underway. Such being the case you should anticipate the second dominant leg (2R) being created the similar way.

For clarification, it should be noted that this statement is not reliable. Example attached.

[bi9foot 10]

For clarification, it should be noted that this statement is not reliable. Example attached.

 

Not really sure what you are trying to point out. You used the same chart that Gucci was using so I am not sure how you are concluding his statement is not reliable.

 

Do you mind clarifying what you were trying to say?

[emac 10]

Hi Gucci,

 

Thanks for putting the charts and clarification. On your chart notes, you mentioned that a bar that VE the LTL would suggest a new point 3. Can you explain further why that is so in the context of the same chart you are describing ?

 

TQVM

 

 

I thought about the statement on the VE -- since VE can't have the FTT, we therefore need the sequence to be completed , therefore a new point would have to be formed to get the FTT of the container. In part, that would seem also to explain the M1 and M2 moves mentioned by Jack in some older threads -- on condition that the close is in the zone between the old LTL and new LTL.

 

Would that be right ?

[gucci 10]

I thought about the statement on the VE -- since VE can't have the FTT, we therefore need the sequence to be completed , therefore a new point would have to be formed to get the FTT of the container. In part, that would seem also to explain the M1 and M2 moves mentioned by Jack in some older threads -- on condition that the close is in the zone between the old LTL and new LTL.

 

Would that be right ?

 

The only thing to add is that not all of the VEs let you anticipate the new point 3. Some of them coincide with the completion of a faster fractal thing inside of the trading fractal. So you get the last 2X of the trading fractal AND the last 2x of the faster fractal which coincide, so to speak, and propel the price beyond LTL. You just have to pay attention and differentiate different types of VEs. In our example the market shot from RTL and beyound LTL on one bar.

 

HTH.

[Zan-shin 10]

Not really sure what you are trying to point out. You used the same chart that Gucci was using so I am not sure how you are concluding his statement is not reliable.

 

Do you mind clarifying what you were trying to say?

OK. Put it another way. Gucci's statement was true for the specific example that he used but it is NOT true to suggest that the 2nd dominant leg will always be built by a faster sequence just because the first dominant leg was built by a faster sequence.