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

  gucci said:
Now, you do not really need me to confirm the answer, do you?:) Now all that remains for you is to go deeper into details and thoroughly annotate all of the sequences of that thing. After that you can start thinking about how could one know earlier that the market changed dominance. Look very closely at what transpired on each and every bar. Regardless of what I or Spyder or anyone else might say, the market has spoken.

 

Gucci, yes actually I really do need you to confirm the correct answer. The market has spoken, but for me right now it speaks in a language that I do not fully understand. So to have you or Spyder confirm what the correct answer is would go a long way to help all of us move closer to fully understanding what the market is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
Now, you do not really need me to confirm the answer, do you?:) Now all that remains for you is to go deeper into details and thoroughly annotate all of the sequences of that thing. After that you can start thinking about how could one know earlier that the market changed dominance. Look very closely at what transpired on each and every bar. Regardless of what I or Spyder or anyone else might say, the market has spoken.

 

Hi Gucci,

 

When studying the chart under discussion, in real time I would have probably taken the (15:35) IBGS on increasing volume, which is also a lateral BO/FBO, as a major signal for change. (This would have been too early as it turns out).

 

Then I thought of this previous quote of yours in response to a post.

 

"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)"

 

Would a similar argument apply here. The 15:35 IBGS cannot be a signal for change because the faster fractal sequence of the second dominant leg (2R) has not completed yet. We can only start looking for a signal for change after the 15:45 bar (the faster fractal sequence for the second dominant leg of the pink container is now complete), and that signal for change comes on the very next bar in the form of another increasing volume ibgs/ob?

 

I hope I am on the right track.:)

Drill2.thumb.jpg.3fffc1cfbdd1480fe6310799ccf08bda.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  sscott said:
Gucci, yes actually I really do need you to confirm the correct answer. The market has spoken, but for me right now it speaks in a language that I do not fully understand. So to have you or Spyder confirm what the correct answer is would go a long way to help all of us move closer to fully understanding what the market is saying.

 

Ok. Now we are at the heart of the whole stuff. Just imagine me saying no. Just imagine me telling you, you are not correct. What would it be able to change?

 

Your confidence.

 

And why? Because you still do not understand that the market IS the final arbitrary judge.

 

The Spyder laid out ALL of the bricks one needs to build a house. Use them...

 

Enjoy the process.

 

How many languages do you speak?

 

Were you ever frustrated by recognizing that you actually do not understant a lot of stuff presented in a languange you are trying to learn, after you just finished learning the alphabet? Why not?

 

Learning to trade isn't any different than learning a language, Only this time you learn the language of the market.

Enjoy.thumb.jpg.38de04392f3f246d6181e496b01c36db.jpg

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
Who could have known, the news was coming.;)

 

Hi Gucci,

 

I was very encouraged by your response to my last post ... getting there ...:)

 

I am also still trying to learn the language of the market.

 

A previous quote ...

 

"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 in a similar way."

 

I am trying to see how this quote applies to the blue container in your chart (attached) from 12:30 to 13:50.

 

On the attached chart I have annotated on the Gaussian how I see the faster fractal b2b2r2b which forms the traverse B2B. We then have the traverse 2R, (which does not break the rtl, and therefore the rtl is not formed by the point 3 of price), but then I don't see the second dominant leg (2B) being created in the same way as the first dominant leg; I can't see the faster fractal here.

 

Any help in understanding the language of the market would be appreciated.

5aa7104b76a4d_DaxDec2.2.thumb.jpg.bd14368df0b9b82270d3499afb702aee.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  203NG said:
... On the attached chart I have annotated on the Gaussian how I see the faster fractal b2b2r2b which forms the traverse B2B.

 

... Any help in understanding the language of the market would be appreciated.

I believe the faster fractal b2b2r2b ends at 13:00, forming the B2B, and reaching PT2. Then a lateral starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  cnms2 said:
I believe the faster fractal b2b2r2b ends at 13:00, forming the B2B, and reaching PT2. Then a lateral starts.

 

Thanks so much for your response cnms2.

 

Would the attached gaussian annotations, (fraster fractal and traverse) be more accurate?

5aa7104baa3d1_DaxDec2.4.thumb.jpg.0e19587c9bea2a7bc261bd7d06a4215d.jpg

Edited by 203NG
Attach picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  203NG said:
Thanks so much for your response cnms2.

 

Would the attached gaussian annotations, (fraster fractal and traverse) be more accurate?

 

It looks like the dominant 2B ended 1325 followed by a r2r pt 2 at 1335. followed by non-dominant lateral that ended at 1400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  emac said:
It looks like the dominant 2B ended 1325 followed by a r2r pt 2 at 1335. followed by non-dominant lateral that ended at 1400.

 

Hi emac

 

According to my understanding, if you have a faster fractal b2b2r2b establishing the first dominant leg of a traverse (B2B) and taking you to the traverse point 2 (as here according to cnms2), then you should anticipate a similar volume sequence (b2r2b) in the second dominant leg of the traverse (from the traverse point 3). As this second volume sequence has not completed at 1325, I don't think that your r2r is valid as this implies change in dominance and we don't have permission to look for change until the faster fractal volume sequence of the 2B (from point 3) is complete.

 

I have tried annotating some more faster fractal traverses.

 

What I find interesting is that after the blue traverse container under discussion, the R2R annotated does not consist of a faster fractal r2r2b2r (at least not one that I can see). It is as if the market "jumps fractals" - I seem to recall Gucci using that phase:)

 

But this is followed by a faster fractal r2b2r for the second dominant leg 2R (from point 3).

5aa7104c99207_DaxDec2.6.thumb.jpg.22284402583836d7bb9d1f271538e62f.jpg

Edited by 203NG
attach chart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  203NG said:
Hi emac

 

According to my understanding, if you have a faster fractal b2b2r2b establishing the first dominant leg of a traverse (B2B) and taking you to the traverse point 2 (as here according to cnms2), then you should anticipate a similar volume sequence (b2r2b) in the second dominant leg of the traverse (from the traverse point 3). As this second volume sequence has not completed at 1325, I don't think that your r2r is valid as this implies change in dominance and we don't have permission to look for change until the faster fractal volume sequence of the 2B (from point 3) is complete.

 

I have tried annotating some more faster fractal traverses.

 

What I find interesting is that after the blue traverse container under discussion, the R2R annotated does not consist of a faster fractal r2r2b2r (at least not one that I can see). It is as if the market "jumps fractals" - I seem to recall Gucci using that phase:)

 

But this is followed by a faster fractal r2b2r for the second dominant leg 2R (from point 3).

 

Hi 203NG,

 

Thanks for the notes. This is how I see it though working on the bar dominance and sequence. I see completion at 1325 that created the point 3 for the thick red channel. The B2B broke the pink traverse and point 2 of the blue traverse created from lateral retrace at 1315.

 

emac

5aa7104cadf1a_DaxDec2.2.thumb.jpg.0b6a38eba660b3c8e55acf055785ce11.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  203ng said:
hi gucci,

 

i was very encouraged by your response to my last post ... Getting there ...:)

 

i am also still trying to learn the language of the market.

 

A previous quote ...

 

"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 in a similar way."

 

i am trying to see how this quote applies to the blue container in your chart (attached) from 12:30 to 13:50.

 

On the attached chart i have annotated on the gaussian how i see the faster fractal b2b2r2b which forms the traverse b2b. We then have the traverse 2r, (which does not break the rtl, and therefore the rtl is not formed by the point 3 of price), but then i don't see the second dominant leg (2b) being created in the same way as the first dominant leg; i can't see the faster fractal here.

 

Any help in understanding the language of the market would be appreciated.

 

hth..............................................

 

The troughs are a bit off, but you still will be able to see the pattern.

5aa7104cb65d6_Trythis.thumb.jpg.0260f1b5c790869c6fa1049d8b4dd05c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
hth..............................................

 

The troughs are a bit off, but you still will be able to see the pattern.

 

Here is the "precise" version.

Version.thumb.jpg.f527dbe7965ebc507fe9dd8b891f164d.jpg

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
Here is the "precise" version.

 

Thanks, Gucci for the chart. I totally forgot that point 2 must be outside the previous RTL and hence my earlier R2R was invalidated with the traverse ending 1350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be getting the Hershey videos and materials set up on Torrent. If someone wants to help with the seeding and trial run send me a PM.

 

Thanks - EZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certain that volume action always precede price action. Volume itself is so much significant and in my own viewing, I will say it is the real price.

 

Whether there will be price movement or not, there must first be a mover, the backbone of any transaction being made, that's the power of Volume at work. So, if you want to enjoy the smooth ride of the trend, you may need watch the magnitude of the volume. That is usually the push behind price actions.

 

It is also true that if volume soars, then price is likely to soar and if volume falls, price is likely to fall. This is not 100% the case anyway, it is only a guiding rule. Specific actions must be taken to monitor the current trend.

 

Is Volume trading most likely suitable for scalping trades?

I suppose it should be better suitable for swing trading as it should be easier to spot a good trend when there is a price rally for some few days and this may be best seen on larger timeframes.

 

In shorter time frames when there is likely to be a trend exhaustion, there is most likely going to be a snap in volume - a sharp drop in volume magnitudes. When this happens, that is a likely signal that price may presently be changing directions.

 

These days, we experience higher Volumes than previous years. That is to help see that Volume is the real price as it reveals the actual market volatility levels which can also strongly determine global economic conditions.

 

Master your volume indicators and compare with price actions. Changes in volume determines changes in price.

 

 

(URL removed for now)

 

To your trading success.

Aden

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.