The Price / Volume Relationship

[Corey 10]

Just wanted to clear up somethings with Journal 1 and Journal 2 that Spydertrader was involved with at ET.

 

A programmer has some questions for me.

 

Are the indicators used (MACD, Stochastic) based on daily bars, if not on what are they based?"

 

Are they basd on daily bars, but entries are end of bar based on 30 minute bars?

 

With the 30 Minute bars, so are buys and sells only on 30 minute close of bars or intrabar? If intrabar, do we need the 30 minute bars for something?

 

Thanks!

 

from the second page of the equity thread

As a result, I found that following his "universe culling" criteria to the letter worked best. Also, Entry criteria should be followed as Jack describes. The biggest "AHA!" moment came when I switched my charts to 30 minute time frame and included the MACD and Stochastic Indicators using Jack's settings (see second post for settings). Everything became crystal clear.

[cnms2 10]

I'm stuck. Today, March 23, at 14:50, the 2 min YM began a run up that lasted for about 8 minutes. At the same time volume was decreasing. This was indicative of a black non dom retrace in a red channel, but it was a dom move in a black channel. Therefore, this would suggest I was on the wrong fractal. But if there is another larger red fractal that makes sense of this, I can't find it. What am I missing? Any explanation of this would be helpful to me. TIA.

I've added a few notes to your chart snippet. I'd also suggest you try firstly to have a good understanding of the 5 min ES charts.

[saturo 10]

Enjoy the drill. PAY, PAY, PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY attention to the tapes and volume ...

 

I'am in a good mood...

 

I'll take a stab at it...

 

#1 - faster fractal - full volume sequence - making new pt3 off of a VE

 

#2 - faster fractal B2B. It is not a traverse level FTT because we still need the rest of the volume sequence.

 

#3 - traverse level R2R (I don't understand why you threw the 2nd orange line in there?)

 

#4 - traverse level 2B

[CDNpatriot 10]

"The biggest "AHA!" moment came when I switched my charts to 30 minute time frame and included the MACD and Stochastic Indicators using Jack's settings (see second post for settings). "

 

but is this to mean that the MACD and Stochastic are based on the 30 minutes or based on a daily.

[patrader 10]

I'm stuck. Today, March 23, at 14:50, the 2 min YM began a run up that lasted for about 8 minutes. At the same time volume was decreasing. This was indicative of a black non dom retrace in a red channel, but it was a dom move in a black channel. Therefore, this would suggest I was on the wrong fractal. But if there is another larger red fractal that makes sense of this, I can't find it. What am I missing? Any explanation of this would be helpful to me. TIA.

 

"Decreasing black Volume represents either a retrace of a down channel or lateral movement in an up channel"(see comments by spydertrader on page 598 in ET).Hmm, dbv can be lateral movement in an UP trend.But what about where price goes up on dbv in an UP trend? When the market reaches Pt 3(usually in a slower container that is being build)sometimes high pace acceleration occurs soon after.This shows up in the volume pane as a large increasing black volume bar in an up trend.The market is building a faster container to attempt to traverse to the LTL of the slower container.As the market continues to build the faster container after the large volume bar the market sometimes trends up on dbv until it reaches it's pt 2 of the faster container.The amount of upward price movement varies but usually there is alot of overlap.Once the market reaches it's pt 2 of this faster container it continues to build the container until completion.hth

[Tams 20]

"Decreasing black Volume represents either a retrace of a down channel or lateral movement in an up channel"(see comments by spydertrader on page 598 in ET).Hmm, dbv can be lateral movement in an UP trend.But what about where price goes up on dbv in an UP trend? When the market reaches Pt 3(usually in a slower container that is being build)sometimes high pace acceleration occurs soon after.This shows up in the volume pane as a large increasing black volume bar in an up trend.The market is building a faster container to attempt to traverse to the LTL of the slower container.As the market continues to build the faster container after the large volume bar the market sometimes trends up on dbv until it reaches it's pt 2 of the faster container.The amount of upward price movement varies but usually there is alot of overlap.Once the market reaches it's pt 2 of this faster container it continues to build the container until completion.hth

 

a diagram would be nice...

[MightyMouse 12]

a diagram would be nice...

 

As a goof, you should put your own picture up as your avatar. No one would know it was really you.

[patrader 10]

a diagram would be nice...

 

please see highlites on price and volume panes and the sequence that follows which completes the faster container nested within the slower container.hth

[Breakeven 10]

I have a question regarding staying on the correct fractal.

 

Instead of a drawn out explanation, I will let the attachment speak for itself.

 

In drawings 1 & 2, the blue lines are B2B of what fractal?

 

Thanks very much for any thoughts!

[Tams 20]

I have a question regarding staying on the correct fractal.

 

Instead of a drawn out explanation, I will let the attachment speak for itself.

 

In drawings 1 & 2, the blue lines are B2B of what fractal?

 

Thanks very much for any thoughts!

 

can you add volume to those drawings?

[Breakeven 10]

can you add volume to those drawings?

 

Updated drawing.

 

In drawing 1 & 2, the Blue lines are B2B of what fractal?

[SK0 10]

Updated drawing.

In drawing 1 & 2, the Blue lines are B2B of what fractal?

They are B2B tape of a B2B Traverse of a Channel.

[SK0 10]

Updated drawing.

In drawing 1 & 2, the Blue lines are B2B of what fractal?

 

Some nesting container terms in particular BBT used by Jack back in 2009 ~ 2010.

[Breakeven 10]

They are B2B tape of a B2B Traverse of a Channel.

 

Thank you very much. But you ended my Blue lines a bit before where my question intended. I have updated the drawing again.

 

In each drawing, a Down Channel has just ended where the Blue lines begin.

 

What fractal has the Blue built?

 

Thanks!

[SK0 10]

Thank you very much. But you ended my Blue lines a bit before where my question intended. I have updated the drawing again.

 

In each drawing, a Down Channel has just ended where the Blue lines begin.

 

What fractal has the Blue built?

 

Thanks!

 

I am using your Picture 1 here. See the attached.

 

This is my understanding. It does not matter your blue Tape ends below or above your Red Channel's RTL. For latter case, it does not imply a Break Out of Red Channel's RTL. The REAL Break Out occurs when we see Increasing Black Volume after Pt 3 of the B2B Traverse.

 

HTH.

[Breakeven 10]

I am using your Picture 1 here. See the attached.

 

This is my understanding. It does not matter your blue Tape ends below or above your Red Channel's RTL. For latter case, it does not imply a Break Out of Red Channel's RTL. The REAL Break Out occurs when we see Increasing Black Volume after Pt 3 of the B2B Traverse.

 

HTH.

 

Thank you! So, since the market is fractal, we can't go from a down Traverse straight to B2B of an up Channel. We must first build an up Traverse which is B2B of the up Channel. This makes perfect sense.

 

So, what happens when a Traverse is built of Tapes that are themselves built of something smaller?

 

Would you agree with my Gaussians for the Blue thing in this attachment?

 

Thanks again!

[Ezzy 10]

Updated drawing.

 

In drawing 1 & 2, the Blue lines are B2B of what fractal?

 

Volume bars would be more helpful vs. gaussians. I see your drawings as 2 very different examples. It's not clear what exactly your question is because if you follow just the line thickness it's obvious - the first is a tape, the 2nd a BBT. That answer doesn't really have any value. As SK0 mentioned it doesn't matter where they end at this point.

 

In the first case based on your drawing and labels alone your skinny blue lines represent a b2b tape for the new traverse. It's laying out a general container framework without regard for volume - and showing 3 observable fractal levels.

 

Because the 2nd case is identical to the first except a fractal smaller, there must be another issue you are struggling with and the same answer as the first (a BBT in this case) is of little or no value.

 

Lets take the 2nd case. You added smaller fractal levels and need volume to tell you whether you have built BBT's, sub-tapes, tapes, goats, whatever. To be accurate, in both cases volume tells you what you've built. But in the second, while you may see from volume you have sub-tapes, it could change. You might have sub-tapes on one leg and none on the next. It can get very difficult on the 5min ES to separate them out as you continue to drop fractals, and at some point unnecessary.

 

One of the reasons we were focusing on the ES only was to simplify learning with the observable levels. (not that anyone has to stick with that) Once you go past that you have to use finer tools.

 

Hope that helps.

 

- EZ

[Breakeven 10]

It's not clear what exactly your question is

- EZ

 

Thank you very much. The fact that both those diagrams were identical (just on a lower fractal) is indeed of value. I agree that it is obvious they are identical, but I have chased my tail on what I consider to be obvious too many times. It is helpful to have agreement on the obvious.

 

So, my exact question: What am I building?

 

Please bear with me while I explain where I am having a disconnect with reality.

 

We all know that what something is cannot be determined in a vacuum. What something looks like has no bearing on what it actually is. The key to determining what something is depends on Context and Order of Events.

 

"What am I building?" Arrive at that answer correctly and all is right with the world.

 

Please picture a stylized Channel built by 3 Traverses (my drawing #1 posted above). At the end of this Channel (where the Blue lines begin), "What am I building?". Answer: a new Channel built by Traverses built by Tapes. So, I start with a Tape which builds X2X of Traverse and so on. Simple.

 

Now please picture a stylized Traverse built by 3 Tapes with complete observable volume cycles (my drawing #2 posted above). At the beginning of this example we have a perfect X2X, but this X2X is not in position to be Pt 2 of a Traverse (it is still inside old Traverse RTL), thus it must be Pt 2 of the Tape. We have a "fractal drop". The Traverse being built then goes on and is completed by 3 perfect and identical Tapes. At the end of this Traverse (where the Blue lines begin), "What am I building?". Answer: a new Traverse built by Tapes built by BBT's/goats/whatever. So, I start with a BBT/goat/whatever which builds X2X of Tape and so on. Simple....or not.

 

This second example describes one way for lower fractals to become "visible". We have added a visible fractal. I have no issues concerning this as it seems obvious. If you disagree with my "fractal drop" please don't hesitate to call me out on this.

 

Now, finally, my disconnect with reality when it comes to asking "What am I building?".

 

If there is a mechanism for "adding" a visible fractal using the tenants of fractal overlap detailed on good 'ole Clean Page 4 there must be a way to "subtract" a visible fractal. Otherwise, eventually, Traverses would last for years. As anytime a new fractal drop occurred we would just keep digging a deeper fractal hole. But I can't for the life of me think of a way to maintain fractal integrity and "subtract" a visible fractal. I know that it must happen and that it does happen. But how could it happen without "jumping" a fractal?

 

Long story short: If the market can add a visible fractal without invalidating Clean Page 4, it must also be possible to subtract a visible fractal per Clean Page 4. How can this subtraction happen?

 

Thanks very much!

[cnms2 10]

... The key to determining what something is depends on Context and Order of Events.

 

... Long story short: If the market can add a visible fractal without invalidating Clean Page 4, it must also be possible to subtract a visible fractal per Clean Page 4. How can this subtraction happen?

 

Thanks very much!

Use volume to follow the order of events, and price to define the context.

 

When the pace decreases the next faster fractal may become visible; when pace increases the fastest visible fractal may not be visible anymore.

 

In addition to monitoring your trading fractal, it is sufficient to also follow the next faster fractal and the next slower fractal. This monitoring can be done on one chart, or on multiple charts. Using the same methodology, when you monitor only the 5min ES you normally trade one fractal slower than the one you trade monitoring both the 5min ES and the 2min YM.

[Breakeven 10]

When the pace decreases the next faster fractal may become visible; when pace increases the fastest visible fractal may not be visible anymore.

 

 

Thank you very much for the reply.

 

The next faster fractal may also become visible when pace stays the same

The next faster fractal may also become visible when pace increases

Depending on the context of course.

 

Please don't take that the wrong way. I am not arguing with you. I understand and agree with you that pace can have an effect on what fractals are visible. But there must be a more fundamental explanation for how a fractal can "disappear" because an increase in pace does not always cause this to happen.

 

For example, in the attached (repost from above), if that first set of Blue lines (which is labeled as a Tape b2b) is an increase in pace, does that automatically mean that the BBT's have "disappeared"?

 

If the answer is no, then I would think that pace changes would be a clue to look for fractal changes but it can't be the "reason".

 

Again, please don't think that I am arguing with you. This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for.

 

Thank you very much for your thoughts!

[Ezzy 10]

Now please picture a stylized Traverse built by 3 Tapes with complete observable volume cycles (my drawing #2 posted above). At the beginning

of this example we have a perfect X2X, but this X2X is not in position to be Pt 2 of a Traverse (it is still inside old Traverse RTL), thus it must be Pt 2 of the Tape. We have a "fractal drop". The Traverse being built then goes on and is completed by 3 perfect and identical Tapes. At the end of this Traverse (where the Blue lines begin), "What am I building?". Answer: a new Traverse built by Tapes built by BBT's/goats/whatever. So, I start with a BBT/goat/whatever which builds X2X of Tape and so on. Simple....or not.

It would be very helpful if you could put the notes with arrows on the chart to note exactly which places you are referring to. I have too many clarifying questions already. Regarding the fractal drop: Why is there a fractal drop at that point? How do you know the first X2X is a BBT and not a tape? The very start of this chart appears to be a channel pt3 and last traverse leg's pt1 and a tape/BBT pt1.

 

This second example describes one way for lower fractals to become "visible". We have added a visible fractal. How?I have no issues concerning this as it seems obvious. If you disagree with my "fractal drop" please don't hesitate to call me out on this.

 

Now, finally, my disconnect with reality when it comes to asking "What am I building?".

 

If there is a mechanism for "adding" a visible fractal using the tenants of fractal overlap detailed on good 'ole Clean Page 4 there must be a way to "subtract" a visible fractal. Otherwise, eventually, Traverses would last for years. As anytime a new fractal drop occurred we would just keep digging a deeper fractal hole. But I can't for the life of me think of a way to maintain fractal integrity and "subtract" a visible fractal. I know that it must happen and that it does happen. But how could it happen without "jumping" a fractal?

 

Long story short: If the market can add a visible fractal without invalidating Clean Page 4, it must also be possible to subtract a visible fractal per Clean Page 4. How can this subtraction happen?

 

Thanks very much!

 

When you break a RTL you are coming out of the lower level, maybe several. Maybe you're having trouble with acceleration and deceleration of the containers? Or not properly accounting for acceleration? That would be my guess.

 

A traverse could only go on forever if it never broke a RTL. On that note, since there have been tapes lasting for more than a day, a traverse could go on a while.

 

If I have a tape, and there are several fractals within that tape, once the tape's RTL is broken all those fractals, no matter how many, are done. The tape doesn't change, though it might accelerate or decelerate. A tape has certain requirements.

 

Could be you're using only price to separate fractals and that's the problem? If you're trying to make sure you have equal sets of sub-sub containers for each level you will run into trouble because they may not be there on the next leg. You end up try to force a type of symmetry that isn't visible anymore because market conditions changed. All of a sudden volume picks up in the afternoon, all the sub-subs disappear and your still trying to draw them in.

 

If clean page 4 is a problem then throw it out.

 

If there is a pair of trending bars, those 2 bars could represent a sub-tape, BBT or Tape.

 

Regards,

 

EZ

[SK0 10]

Thank you! So, since the market is fractal, we can't go from a down Traverse straight to B2B of an up Channel. We must first build an up Traverse which is B2B of the up Channel. This makes perfect sense.

 

So, what happens when a Traverse is built of Tapes that are themselves built of something smaller?

 

Would you agree with my Gaussians for the Blue thing in this attachment?

 

Thanks again!

 

Breakeven,

 

Don't create another naming conventions for your convenience but confuse everyone here.

 

To my best understanding, there are two generally accepted naming conventions. One is Tape, Traverse and Channel where a Tape is built bar to bar. Another one is Fast Fractal, Trading Fractal and Slow Fractal where a Fast Fractal is built bar to bar.

 

As I mentioned in post #2813 with comments on your Picture 2 in prior page, Jack created another one with sub-BBT being built bar to bar AND in a 5-min chart. I believe most readers here are not fond of using them. Lastly, your naming in Picture 2 is not correct.

[cnms2 10]

... The next faster fractal may also become visible when pace stays the same

The next faster fractal may also become visible when pace increases

Depending on the context of course.

 

... I understand and agree with you that pace can have an effect on what fractals are visible. But there must be a more fundamental explanation for how a fractal can "disappear" because an increase in pace does not always cause this to happen.

 

... This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for.

 

Thank you very much for your thoughts!

A quick reply:

 

Fast / slow pace means high / low market activity, due to various reasons. I've attached a theoretical example of how the same waveform is seen under fast and slow (variable) paces. The vertical lines being considered 5 minute chart bars, it can be seen how under slower pace a faster fractal becomes visible.

 

I don't agree with your quoted statements, but can't say / prove they're incorrect. Maybe you'd like to move from theoretical to real examples.

[Ezzy 10]

Containers

 

Any line drawn on a chart must have a rational, objective, definable and consistant reason for doing so. Make sure all lines on your chart conform to this definition.

 

- Spydertrader

 

We define Tapes, Traverses and Channels by each having certain characteristics which represent various geometric shapes. Unfortuantely, many people attempt to compare and contrast based on a visual derived from the Price Pane. Such a paradigm, quite frequently, creates opportunity for error. I recommend the lower portion of your chart in order to determine whether or not one has a Tape, Traverse or Channel.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Whatever something "looks like" in the Price Pane falls under the catagory of unimportant because a tape does not ever look like a traverse (or anything else) when observing the Volume Pane.

 

You can call something a tape, traverse or channel (hell, call it a goat if you like) by looking at a Price Pane, but Volume always indicates exactly what the market has built for you to see.

 

Without exception.

 

Three choices exist, and we call these three choices tapes, traverses and channels (skinny, medium and thick; or L1, L2 & L3 if you prefer different nomenclature).

 

No more 'Chubby' tapes.

No more 'Faster Fractal' Traverses.

No more Lateral 'Movement.'

 

Tapes build Traverses and Traverses Build Channels.

 

Again, whatever something "looks like" in the Price pane does not matter in the slightest. The Gaussians always tell you what the market has created.

 

Without a doubt, if asked, a roomful of traders would provide as many answers with respect to what the market created across most of today (7-20-2009). Again, if one chooses to look at what today's 'something' "looks like" by observing the Price Pane, a variety of opinions develop. However, only one possible accurate answer exists, and it resides in the signals the market has provided in The Volume Pane.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

 

RE: Clean page 4

 

If you logically think this through, you'll realize you already know the answer to this question.

 

All trends overlap at the FTT (Point One). No Trends overlap at Point Two. Ocassionally, some trends overlap at Point Three (what Jack and Neoxx discused as "the golden triangle").

 

What Volume Sequences cause Price to move from Point One to an FTT?

 

What Volume sequences push Price from Point One to Point Two? To Point Three?

 

Once one arrives at an FTT of a specific fractal, then the non-stationary window (for that specific fractal) has closed. As such, 'sequences' are not shared in the fashion your question specifies.

 

- Spydertrader

 

More on containers:

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-92.html#post96963

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-92.html#post97027

[Ezzy 10]

Fractals

 

We want to always annotate three fractal levels. Sometimes, we have the ability to see more than three fractal levels. Sometimes it is difficult just to see three levels.

 

The market provides clues as to when one can expect difficulty seeing three levels, as well as, times when we can expect to see more than three levels.

 

- Spydertrader

 

You should consider the effect changing Pace has on your ability to 'see' things clearly, and start again. You should also consider annotating three fractals in an effort to see how the nesting process works. Sometimes proper nesting of fractals can make things a bit easier to see.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Vocabulary

 

Then name the differences anything you like. Up / Down, Left / Right, Goat / Hedgehog or whatever other binary pattern suits you. The vocabulary isn't nearly as important as recognizing a subtle difference in the object itself (at this point in time). For example, the first example of a Lateral (today), moved in the opposite direction of the previous bar (Note, how I did not use Dominant nor Non-Dominant here). Whereas, yesterday's examples formed in the same direction as the previous bar (to the actual lateral). Clearly, such a thing would represent a subtle difference.

 

At some point in the future (once you do have a better handle on Order of Events), you can always change the vocabulary.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Listen. You need to fight the urge to overcomplicate things. In the beginning stages of attempting to learn this material, everyone (including myself) tries to 'invent' different ways they 'feel' might best suite their needs, but the reality is, far different than one expects. You currently find yourself 'hung up' on vocabulary. Your prior educational experience dictates you need to understand vocabulary in order to understand a concept. This is true only in cases where vocabulary is the differentiating factor.

 

In this specific case the words "tape, traverse, channel, bbt, sub bbt sub-sub bbt (or however many fractals down the rabbit hole one wishes to travel)" have zero relevance to understanding. One could just as easily use "thin, medium, thick, dotted, dashed, dot-dashed" or even "pig, goat, cow, spider, insect, bateria" to describe the exact same events. You understand the "pig, goat, cow" analogy because you know the absolute definition of each organism. You therefore assume, using the same approach, all you need is to understand the absolute definition of "tape, traverse, channel or bbt," What the reality is you have yet to understand that the market often speaks in a language which (while sometimes providing absolutes) most frequently transfers information in a relative sense.

 

In other words, you should focus on when you have a completed container compared to when the market continues to build the same container. In such a fashion, you need not know what to call the container itself, but by applying the fractal nature of all markets, you can know when one container has ended, and another has begun.

 

- Spydertrader

 

A Drill:

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-67.html#post88089