The Price / Volume Relationship

[Breakeven 10]

Thanks to everyone for the comments. I really appreciate that you all took the time to consider my questions.

 

 

Breakeven,

 

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

 

 

It was not my intention to change convention or to create confusion. I drew what I thought would be the most simple way to convey my question. Unfortunately I seem to have created problems in understanding rather than clarifying my question. I know that the communication problem here is me. Please let me take a while to attempt to clarify in a later post.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Maybe you'd like to move from theoretical to real examples.

 

 

Thank you very much for those examples! That is an excellent visual for seeing how pace effects changes. As for the real examples, I can't seem to convey my thoughts with "perfect"(?) theoretical examples. I have no doubt that at the moment any attempt on my part to do so with real examples would be worse. As I said to SK0 above I am going to try a more clear example if I can think of a way to do so.

 

 

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.

 

 

This statement is heading toward my question! To be honest, my question is focused on a single word in this statement. Please let me break this down into pieces to make sure I am on the same page.

 

If I have a tape, and there are several fractals within that tape. This is exactly my focus for the question. Regardless of the reason those fractals exist in the Tape, the fact is they exist. Lets leave it at that. They exist.

 

once the tape's RTL is broken. Ok, the Tape with the several fractals within is complete. The next Tape is underway. It is the construction of this next Tape that is the focus of my question. But, please don't stop reading here because the last part of your statement is the linchpin for my question.

 

all those fractals, no matter how many, are done. And here is the single word that clarifies my question: done. Are they done -OR- are they gone? Please let me be specific on the difference between done/gone.

 

Done = Complete, but must still be respected in terms of fractal overlap in the construction of the next Tape.

 

Gone = I do not need to concern myself with them in the construction of the next Tape.

 

all those fractals, no matter how many, are ____

 

 

I sincerely hope that I didn't just dig a deeper hole.

Thank you all very much for your time.

[frenchfry 10]

Thank you Breakeven for sharing your questions and thanks to SK0, Ezzy and cnms for your feedback!

 

I thought there were some really "good"/helpful replies and everything sounded logical in my head and made sense. But let's see if I (we) can identify everything on real charts...

 

It starts with two bars. What do we know?

 

1. It is a translation black.

2. We seem to be able to draw a _______ (tape?, bbt?, FF?, goat?, sheep?, ...)

3. The second bar didn't reach the LTL. Maybe it is a ftt of that "thing"?

4. Pace is high.

5. Volume is decreasing black. Indicating...(?)... it is a non dominant move of something bigger/slower (?)

6. Even though I can put pt1, 2 and 3 in the price pane volume doesn't seem to support this. What does this tell us?

7. Do we know WMCN?

8. ....?

[frenchfry 10]

One bar later... what do we know?

 

1. Is this still the same thing (tape, FF, bbt, etc.) that we had before?

2. Even though price seems to support pt 1, 2 and 3 the same doesn't seem to be visible in volume.

3. Maybe this bar is the ftt of that thing? Why? Why not?

4. WMCN? Why?

[frenchfry 10]

a few bars later...

 

1. Are we still in the same "thing"? Why?

2. Price continued higher and volume gives us a clue (or maybe not). Before it seemed like we had pt 1, 2 and 3 of that "thing" clearly identified (and maybe we did). Looking at volume now it seems to indicate that this thing is going from pt 1 of "something" to pt 2 of "something".

3. WMCN?

[frenchfry 10]

Is this "thing" coming to an end or did we jump?

 

1. Looking at volume we made a textbook B2B move. WMCN?

2. Looking at price did we already have pt 1, 2 and 3?

3. Is this now our ftt?

[frenchfry 10]

now we start to dig rabbit holes. depending on beliefs, rules or knowledge there seem to be at least three different ways to draw the gaussian lines.

 

What do we know?

 

1. Volume indicated that we move(d) from pt 1 to pt 2 of "something". WMCN is an FTT of the "thing" we are currently in and then we need a similar "thing" which moves from pt 2 to pt 3. Correct?

2. This last bar is an IBGS. Is this important to our "thing"? Important to drawing the gaussian lines?

3. Can the last bar be our ftt? Why yes? Why not?

 

P.S. Let me know if I'm wasting my (your) time or bore you to death.

[Ezzy 10]

Done = Complete, but must still be respected in terms of fractal overlap in the construction of the next Tape.

 

Gone = I do not need to concern myself with them in the construction of the next Tape.

 

all those fractals, no matter how many, are ____

 

 

I sincerely hope that I didn't just dig a deeper hole.

Thank you all very much for your time.

 

Well - you tell me if the hole got bigger or filled in.

 

As I see it one bar, the FTT, is going to be the final bar for all the fractals and they are done, finished. See "non-stationary window" if you want to complicate it.

 

And it's the point one of every new container regardless of the fractal level. So in that sense not gone, but they have absolutely no bearing on what will be built next.

 

With that said, in the tape example, we know we are building another tape because we broke out of the old one, had an FTT, (sequence completed, signal for change, etc). We could build that tape without any sub fractals. But not right into a traverse as a traverse needs 3 tapes.

[cnms2 10]

now we start to dig rabbit holes. depending on beliefs, rules or knowledge there seem to be at least three different ways to draw the gaussian lines.

 

What do we know?

 

1. Volume indicated that we move(d) from pt 1 to pt 2 of "something". WMCN is an FTT of the "thing" we are currently in and then we need a similar "thing" which moves from pt 2 to pt 3. Correct?

2. This last bar is an IBGS. Is this important to our "thing"? Important to drawing the gaussian lines?

3. Can the last bar be our ftt? Why yes? Why not?

 

P.S. Let me know if I'm wasting my (your) time or bore you to death.

The "ten cases" could be applied.

[Ezzy 10]

Thank you Breakeven for sharing your questions and thanks to SK0, Ezzy and cnms for your feedback!

 

I thought there were some really "good"/helpful replies and everything sounded logical in my head and made sense. But let's see if I (we) can identify everything on real charts...

 

It starts with two bars. What do we know?

 

1. It is a translation black.

2. We seem to be able to draw a _______ (tape?, bbt?, FF?, goat?, sheep?, ...)

3. The second bar didn't reach the LTL. Maybe it is a ftt of that "thing"?

4. Pace is high.

5. Volume is decreasing black. Indicating...(?)... it is a non dominant move of something bigger/slower (?)

6. Even though I can put pt1, 2 and 3 in the price pane volume doesn't seem to support this. What does this tell us?

7. Do we know WMCN?

8. ....?

 

Oh hell no! We're not going all the way back here: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-6.html#post71055

:rofl:

 

A few questions as you walk through bar by bar, no context other than what's in this series:

 

To get to point 2, any point 2, what does volume have to do?

Where is the first place you saw that happen?

Does anything before that point matter for this fractal?

Can you draw in a non-dom container anywhere?

Why or why not?

If you believe you can, is it on this fractal?

 

The bigger questions:

 

Where does the move finish? Why?

Is the move finished?

When will we know for sure?

Edited April 3, 2011 by Ezzy

[SK0 10]

The "ten cases" could be applied.

 

frenchfry, put in prior trend lines of Tape, Traverse and Channel in cnms2's chart. They are important.

Edited April 3, 2011 by SK0

[frenchfry 10]

The "ten cases" could be applied.

 

Good hint. Thank you.

 

I labeled my alternative "2" incorrectly. Nr. 2 should be from the last peak a 2R followed by 2B.

 

Looking at volume all bars are black. By not applying the ten cases at bars 7 to 9 one could be tempted to draw another B2B. But now it "looks like" we have a complete volume sequence until bar 9. B2B2R2B. WMCN?

 

The green bookmark that cnms placed indicates that we think bar nine is the ftt of that container.

[frenchfry 10]

Oh hell no! We're not going all the way back here: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-6.html#post71055

:rofl:

 

A few questions as you walk through bar by bar, no context other than what's in this series:

 

To get to point 2, any point 2, what does volume have to do?

Where is the first place you saw that happen?

Does anything before that point matter for this fractal?

Can you draw in a non-dom container anywhere?

Why or why not?

If you believe you can, is it on this fractal?

 

The bigger questions:

 

Where does the move finish? Why?

Is the move finished?

When will we know for sure?

 

My understanding...

 

1. We need a prior volume peak (pt1) then a volume through followed by increasing volume (same color) and another volume peak.

 

2. The first place (in the volume pane) that indicated that price is potentially moving from a pt 1 to a pt 2 was bar 5.

 

3. Yes, until bar 4 we had to assume (based on what I showed on the chart) that those 4 bars are a non dominant tape of a traverse(?).

 

4. Bar 7 and 8 could be seen as a non dominant container within that container but price still stayed in the original tape which started with two bars. We are still in the same container and on the same fractal at least until bar 9.

 

5. In general a move finishes with an ftt followed by a breakout of that container.

 

6. Based on the bars that I showed we think that bar 9 could potentially be the ftt of that container.

 

7. We have to wait for the next bar to break the current RTL. Bar 9 should also be a volume peak.

 

Now feel free to hit me...

[Corey 10]

Thank you Breakeven for sharing your questions and thanks to SK0, Ezzy and cnms for your feedback!

 

I thought there were some really "good"/helpful replies and everything sounded logical in my head and made sense. But let's see if I (we) can identify everything on real charts...

 

It starts with two bars. What do we know?

 

1. It is a translation black.

2. We seem to be able to draw a _______ (tape?, bbt?, FF?, goat?, sheep?, ...)

3. The second bar didn't reach the LTL. Maybe it is a ftt of that "thing"?

4. Pace is high.

5. Volume is decreasing black. Indicating...(?)... it is a non dominant move of something bigger/slower (?)

6. Even though I can put pt1, 2 and 3 in the price pane volume doesn't seem to support this. What does this tell us?

7. Do we know WMCN?

8. ....?

 

on bar 2 volume is the same color and decreasing, if already in, hold. if not in, wait.

[frenchfry 10]

frenchfry, put in prior trend lines of Tape, Traverse and Channel in cnms2's chart. They are important.

 

You wrote "...in cnms2's chart..." enclosed is maybe not what you meant. The weights of the line are not an indication that we have two or more fractals it is still only one container (tape) potentially two tapes if I put bars 7 to 9 into containers.

 

But you might have meant to show the fractals before my bar 0!? In this example I'm trying to build three fractals from scratch and on my way there show/use some of the excellent feedback that you, cnms and ezzy gave to breakeven on a real chart.

 

At the same time I'm trying to correct my own misunderstanding and invite/stimulate others to check their own understanding.

 

Thank you SK0!

[Ezzy 10]

My understanding...

 

1. We need a prior volume peak (pt1) then a volume through followed by increasing volume (same color) and another volume peak.

A peak which may or may not be the actual highest volume bar.

 

2. The first place (in the volume pane) that indicated that price is potentially moving from a pt 1 to a pt 2 was bar 5.

Yes, using bar one as bar zero as noted in your clip. Might be easier to start with the first bar as bar one. Just nit picking, but it threw me off at first.

 

3. Yes, until bar 4 we had to assume (based on what I showed on the chart) that those 4 bars are a non dominant tape of a traverse(?).

 

We don't know because there is nothing prior, no context. If it's non-dom tape of a traverse then we already went 1 to 2 of a traverse, and now there is some context, we're building 2 to 3.

 

By the volatility and volume of the first bar compared to the others, it appears to be the start of a dominant leg of something on some level. But we don't know yet, and we have no context. It's just an assumption, a guess. Could be a pt1 to pt2 or pt3 to FTT leg of something.

 

4. Bar 7 and 8 could be seen as a non dominant container within that container but price still stayed in the original tape which started with two bars. We are still in the same container and on the same fractal at least until bar 9.

 

Right. The sym pennant may be a non-dom move on some fractal, so far it's just an internal considered as one bar. You really need another bar to properly annotate it and see if it has any bearing on this fractal, or if you need to even bother annotating it. If you do annotate, it's not done on this fractal. If you were on smaller fractals there are probably a couple more before this. None of them matter.

 

Now your gaussian example #1, the gaussian indicates bar 7 is the end of B2B (an ftt of some sort) and the next 2 bars are 2R. Bar 9 continued to move in the dominant direction and you can't annotate a non-dom container across those bars. You are annotating something in the volume pane that you can't annotate in the price pane. Nothing wrong with doing that in general, just don't let it confuse which fractal you're on - easy to do.

 

In this case it may be an incorrect annotation as well. The current convention is to annotate to the peak of the move. IMO that provides more clarity. At one time it was common to annotate the dominant gaussian to the volume peak and start annotating non-dom as soon as the volume bars decreased.

 

Consider that if you looked on smaller fractals you might see dominance continue until the top of bar 9. That's what Pr0crast was getting at in a recent post. The decreasing volume may give you a clue that the move is running out of steam and near a peak, but it does not indicate you have had actual change.

 

As a side note let's take the example 2, even though you changed it, initially the gaussian showed R2R from bars 7 to 9. Lets assume you believe example 1 is possible and prefer to annotate old school style. Then example 2 as an R2R might also be possible.

 

I saw an unusual example of an R2R annotated in such a fashion (only once), where the 1st bar of the pennant was an ftt and the start of a post pt3 lateral - black dominant. An IBGS made a higher high later in the lateral and was annotated as 2R of an R2R. Now this could have been an error (yes it's possible), or a special context, or maybe it was correct on another fractal and carried over. But this doesn't work on all examples, or even most examples. So while we tend to require there to be hard and fast rules like: annotate to price peaks and troughs, pt2 is always outside the RTL, etc; keep an open mind, follow the sequences and the PV principles. Don't go changing or throwing out everything because something doesn't appear to work out properly in one area. (And no, I'm not going to dig up that one chart, it's insignificant)

 

5. In general a move finishes with an ftt followed by a breakout of that container.

 

6. Based on the bars that I showed we think that bar 9 could potentially be the ftt of that container.

 

7. We have to wait for the next bar to break the current RTL. Bar 9 should also be a volume peak.

 

Now feel free to hit me...

If you insist

 

This whole time is focused on 1,2,3 for this container. Doesn't matter what it's called or what we're building yet, we can't trade it. It's the smallest visible container. We're looking for point 2 of the next larger container, then point 3, then ftt, where we can then look to enter or reverse.

 

If bar zero is an ftt and point 1 then we are holding for a non-dom container, and then a dominant container at a minimum. Otherwise we would need to drop to a smaller fractal to trade this one.

[Breakeven 10]

 

Well - you tell me if the hole got bigger or filled in.

 

We could build that tape without any sub fractals.

 

 

Thank you Sir!

 

Hole nicely filled in.

[SK0 10]

You wrote "...in cnms2's chart..." enclosed is maybe not what you meant. The weights of the line are not an indication that we have two or more fractals it is still only one container (tape) potentially two tapes if I put bars 7 to 9 into containers.

 

But you might have meant to show the fractals before my bar 0!? In this example I'm trying to build three fractals from scratch and on my way there show/use some of the excellent feedback that you, cnms and ezzy gave to breakeven on a real chart.

 

At the same time I'm trying to correct my own misunderstanding and invite/stimulate others to check their own understanding.

 

Thank you SK0!

 

There is a remote likelihood that cnms2's annotation could be wrong due to the lack of context from you.

 

The above sentence in red in the quote is what I meant. RTLs of prior Tape, Traverse and Channel are important components to form X2X Analysis to know where you are in the fractals. To me, Pt 1 to Pt 2 BO of prior RTL is a religous experience.

 

If you have not tried, ask yourself hard Traverse level questions below:

 

What if my X2X Tape BO of prior Traverse RTL with Decreasing X Volume?

 

What if I take three Tapes, X2X, 2Y and 2X, to BO of prior Traverse RTL?

 

Ask the same at Channel and Tape levels?

 

[frenchfry 10]

Continuing....

 

number 5c

[frenchfry 10]

number 6....

 

For the experts... your are always welcome.

For those still learning... your opinions and questions are very important as well. For yourself and those in a similar situation as they offer everybody an opportunity to learn.

[frenchfry 10]

number 7...

 

Damn... message to short again. Have to write more.....

[Ezzy 10]

number 7...

 

Damn... message to short again. Have to write more.....

 

For the fractal you're working on, starting with the 10 cases, the first container you can draw is extended and fanned up through bar 9.

 

Everything so far has been contained by the RTL, fanning all the way. There is a question on the pennant but it doesn't cause a down container for this fractal.

 

What about the OB? It's decreasing volume so I'd be suspicious. As with the pennant waiting for another bar can help. You have 2 preliminary lines drawn with the OB for a possible down container.

 

Please draw in the point 2 to point 3 non-dominant container that's annotated here.

What bar is point 2 and what bar is point 3?

 

The start of taping discussion: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-2.html#post70161

 

For now, annotate every tape you can on your chart. Then, begin to 'merge' the various tapes together into a trend.

 

- Spydertrader

[cnms2 10]

number 7 ...

A few sub-fractal observations.

[gucci 10]

number 6....

 

For the experts... your are always welcome.

For those still learning... your opinions and questions are very important as well. For yourself and those in a similar situation as they offer everybody an opportunity to learn.

 

 

I'm not an expert. So here are my .

 

There is no way all of your Gaussians could be correct. Just like Ezzy said you have a tape (faster fractal traverse if you wish) here. The rtl had to be fanned all the way through, as Ezzy pointed out.

 

So all you have in terms of the sequences (judging from the provided snippet) is B2B. Try to draw the non-dominant 2R tape there.

 

HTH

[jbarnby 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

[gucci 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

 

 

................................................................