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

  romanus said:
I note 3 types of laterals: (a) Point 2 to Point 3 movements, (b) post Point 3 movements into the trend, and © Point 1 to Point 2 movements [e.g. 15:15 on 7/23]. I suppose, both (b) and © can be classified as non-dominant. [As in one thing is dominant entering the lateral and then another thing is dominant exiting the lateral]. Other than their location in the gaussian sequence, I can't think of any other way of differentiating them.

 

 

Romanus, how Point 2 to Point 3 movement can be dominant? (in a binary universe of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
Romanus, how Point 2 to Point 3 movement can be dominant? (in a binary universe of course)
Adding a word 'dominant' or 'non-dominant' in front of the word 'lateral' doesn't change the nature of the lateral formation/movement. I believe it only serves as a way of differentiating various types of laterals. Sort of "vocabulary word" type of deal. However, don't qoute me on this, as there may be a hidden meaning there in the particular choice of words (dominant/non-dominant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  romanus said:
Adding a word 'dominant' or 'non-dominant' in front of the word 'lateral' doesn't change the nature of the lateral formation/movement. I believe it only serves as a way of differentiating various types of laterals. Sort of "vocabulary word" type of deal. However, don't qoute me on this, as there may be a hidden meaning there in the particular choice of words (dominant/non-dominant).

 

Those "vocabulary words" influence decisions and actions resulting from them. It is kind of important. How would you describe the "nature" of a lateral which comprises the movement of price from point 2 to point 3? What decision (and appropriate action) would result from the aforementioned different description?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romanus is spot on. Don't get hung up on a word. Call them Type I and Type II laterals, remembering that for the purposes of this discussion, ALL laterals must progress through the following structures: Pennant -> Lateral Formation -> "Lateral".

 

Spyder has said in this thread, we must consider what goes on inside the lateral and to me that means one must answer the questions:

  • Where am I in the sequence of the fractal on which I am trading?
  • Based on my position in the sequence, WMCN? As has been said many, many times before, WMCN refers to what must come next in the 1,2,3 sequence. That's all it means (and that's enough).
  • How did the lateral start?
  • What went on as the lateral progressed? This will be more or less important depending on your level of expertise as a trader.

 

If you know the answers to these questions, you will know the outcome long before it comes to pass and you just wait for the outcome to show itself. There is ZERO prediction involved. We've had a mess o' laterals this AM which illustrate the logic outlined above. This is NOT the only way to say this stuff. Put it in your own words.

Edited by ljyoung
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ljyoung said:
Romanus is spot on. Don't get hung up on a word. Call them Type I and Type II laterals, remembering that for the purposes of this discussion, ALL laterals must progress through the following structures: Pennant -> Lateral Formation -> "Lateral".

 

Spyder has said in this thread, we must consider what goes on inside the lateral and to me that means one must answer the questions:

  • Where am I in the sequence of the fractal on which I am trading?
  • Based on my position in the sequence, WMCN? As has been said many, many times before, WMCN refers to what must come next in the 1,2,3 sequence. That's all it means (and that's enough).
  • How did the lateral start?
  • What went on as the lateral progressed? This will be more or less important depending on your level of expertise as a trader.

 

If you know the answers to these questions, you will know the outcome long before it comes to pass and you just wait for the outcome to show itself. There is ZERO prediction involved. We've had a mess o' laterals this AM which illustrate the logic outlined above. This is NOT the only way to say this stuff. Put it in your own words.

 

 

ljyoung, are you interested in a scientific discussion of the topic at hand? If you are, then let us cut to the chase and discuss those things. The hole shit we are talking about here is binary (I hope), so the answers to any questions asked schould be unambiguous. I thought you have got a scientific background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
ljyoung, are you interested in a scientific discussion of the topic at hand? If you are, then let us cut to the chase and discuss those things. The whole shit we are talking about here is binary (I hope), so the answers to any questions asked schould be unambiguous. I thought you have got a scientific background.

 

FYI, that is precisely what I am doing. EVERYTHING about which I spoke is Boolean. That, as you know, is what NO PREDICTION means.

 

Science, as it develops, may or may not have to do with Booleans, but the end point should be a Boolean, if at all possible. Sometimes, for a time, it isn't possible but that is another discussion for another thread.

 

So back to topic which is laterals. Sure looks to me like we had one of those unambiguous change in dominance thingies. So there's got to be a P2 and a P3 leading up to the P1 and we are talking about a traverse in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ljyoung said:
So back to topic which is laterals. Sure looks to me like we had one of those unambiguous change in dominance thingies. So there's got to be a P2 and a P3 leading up to the P1 and we are talking about a traverse in this instance.

 

I do not understand why you are talking about fractals here (you used the word traverse), I was talking about the movement of price from point 2 to point 3. We could nail it down and move on. Another (not so appealing to me at all) alternative would be to play with definitions and their meanings and get stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
I do not understand why you are talking about fractals here (you used the word traverse), I was talking about the movement of price from point 2 to point 3. We could nail it down and move on. Another (not so appealing to me at all) alternative would be to play with definitions and their meanings and get stuck.

 

You may be playing with definitions. I'm not BUT you'd better know whatTF a P1, a P2 and a P3 are. What I'm talking about is knowing whereTF you are in terms of the fractal on which you are trading. Talking about the 'movement of price from P2 to P3' is meaningless unless you know where you are in terms of the sequence of the fractal on which you are trading.

 

This thread is about the 5 min ES traverse trading fractal unless I've missed something. Read romanus' stuff in this thread and see if that doesn't help.

 

Thank you Spyder. Without your help I would not be able to see more clearly (not perfectly as yet) what the real PV is.

Edited by ljyoung
spelling x3 and a variety of grammatical errors as well and an added thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ljyoung said:
You may be playing with definitions. I'm not BUT you'd better know whatTF a P1, a P2 and a P3 are. What I'm talking about is knowing whereTF you are in terms of the fractal on which you are trading. Talking about the 'movement of price from P2 to P3' is meaningless unless you know where you are in terms of the sequence of the fractal on which you are trading.

 

This thread is about the 5 min ES traverse trading fractal unless I've missed something. Read romanus' stuff in this thread and see if that doesn't help.

 

Thank you Spyder. Without your help I would not be able to see more clearly (not perfectly as yet) what the real PV is.

 

 

Spyder, you thanked ljyoung. I guess this is really helpful for somebody. What about the question? The lateral movement from point 2 to point 3 can it be a non-dom one?

 

PS: ljyoung, I was not playing with definitions. I hope you know what I'm talking about. Are you a scientist?

Edited by gucci
Thank you for your TF that was really helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
I guess this is really helpful for somebody.

 

Your posts continue to confirm observations made long ago: You simply refuse to engage your brain, prior to, engaging your mouth (or in this case, keyboard). Several people have attempted to assist your understanding, but instead of listening to, and learning from, their advice, you have, instead, chosen a different path - one which clearly fails to motivate others to continue their assistance.

 

Jb, Roman and Lj have each provided you with helpful advice. I encourage you to review their recent posting history.

 

If you don't much care for the advice of these three, I suggest you follow your own advice instead ...

 

  gucci said:
I won't bother you anymore with my posts.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My efforts on STITCH / OB / LAT - Differentiation Drill for today.

07302009-Diff-Drill.thumb.jpg.e406eb58e845873fb5ae203878a48750.jpg

Edited by ehorn
new image - missed an OB :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ehorn said:
My efforts on STITCH / OB / LAT - Differentiation Drill for today.

 

Thank you so much for sharing your efforts! What is your definition of Stitch-DV? Stitch-IV (I noted that both the long and short stitches are thus labeled)? DOM and Non-DOM Laterals? Please, and how do you build up the gausians? building from the smallest unit to the larger as they develop? I am trying to follow as per definition in post #6, but not so sure whether I am hearing the market clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rs5 said:
Thank you so much for sharing your efforts! What is your definition of Stitch-DV? Stitch-IV (I noted that both the long and short stitches are thus labeled)? DOM and Non-DOM Laterals? Please, and how doyou build up the gausians? building from the smallest unit to the larger as they develop?

 

yvw,

 

DV = Decreasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

IV = Increasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

 

Think of a flaw (i.e. pennant type) - What type of volume typically forms the second bar of the pennant? A stitch is also a flaw. IMO, The volume of the second bar gives clues as to what type of stitch we are observing (think increasing volume decreasing volatility - or the inverse).

 

With regards to laterals, I share a similar view as JBarnby describes in an earlier post where he describes the differentiation of laterals.

 

Gaussians are tracked and built from lowest fractal to highest (tape ---> traverse ---> channel). Sometimes there are more visible fractals on a 5M chart (sub-fractals) but we strive to focus on the 3 listed above.

 

I have attached my debriefed chart for today. On It, I use blue to indicate tapes, green (today) and orange to indicate traverse (5M level). Looks like tomorrow I will be using the orange... :)

 

Best wishes

07302009.thumb.jpg.42fa59e28a6ceaee37062c1cd796235f.jpg

Edited by ehorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching Aronofsky's "π". Thank God it's tonight and not 6 months ago or God knows where I'd be (heh, heh). It got me thinking about what we have been discussing and as is often the case, the old man pops up with his set of 'terminators' (my word for want of a better term) and then he vanishes into n-dimensional vector space or wherever it is that he hangs out.

 

Three of the five are the pennants. If you have a third inside bar then you are 'stuck' in the traverse but if you immediately 'break out' of the pennant, then the possible consequences can be quite different if the circumstances are appropriate. Since stitches are just 'reverse pennants' the same logic can apply to them.

 

The trendlines, if you will, associated with the pennants are going to be of particular consequence depending on whether or not you are in a trend which 'matches' the trendlines of the pennant. I think this is what Spyder was talking about in his earlier post. Please note that this is merely my opinion and is not to be construed in any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rs5 said:
trying to get to the right ballpark.......

 

I recommend begining the process of learning how to locate the 'correct ballpark' by annotating Price Bars two by two (using the examples shown earlier in the thread). Once one understands the correct procedure required for annotation, one can then begin to see how the process of refining one's technique brings things right into focus.

 

Currently, you have attempted to create a medium size and larger picture, but without the added benefit of the building blocks which make up the details.

 

Begin with these smaller pieces and build from there. In such a fashion, you'll soon see how letters form words, and words become sentences. It is within these sentences that the market tells its story.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
Your posts continue to confirm observations made long ago: You simply refuse to engage your brain, prior to, engaging your mouth (or in this case, keyboard). Several people have attempted to assist your understanding, but instead of listening to, and learning from, their advice, you have, instead, chosen a different path - one which clearly fails to motivate others to continue their assistance.

 

Jb, Roman and Lj have each provided you with helpful advice. I encourage you to review their recent posting history.

 

If you don't much care for the advice of these three, I suggest you follow your own advice instead ...

 

 

 

- Spydertrader

 

Not much of a choice,don't you think? Either follow the advice of those, who don't understand what they are talking about (or couldn't use their understanding profitably) or shut up. This is really priceless. I hope you enjoy the show,because somebody has to get something from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  ehorn said:
yvw,

 

DV = Decreasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

IV = Increasing Volume - The second bar in the formation

 

Think of a flaw (i.e. pennant type) - What type of volume typically forms the second bar of the pennant? A stitch is also a flaw. IMO, The volume of the second bar gives clues as to what type of stitch we are observing (think increasing volume decreasing volatility - or the inverse).

 

 

Thank you so much! This is very helpful. Second vol bar of the pennant is typically smaller than the first vol bar. I will pay attention to the second vol bar of stitch today.

 

  ehorn said:

 

Gaussians are tracked and built from lowest fractal to highest (tape ---> traverse ---> channel). Sometimes there are more visible fractals on a 5M chart (sub-fractals) but we strive to focus on the 3 listed above.

 

 

Very helpful! Thank you!

 

  ehorn said:

I have attached my debriefed chart for today. On It, I use blue to indicate tapes, green (today) and orange to indicate traverse (5M level). Looks like tomorrow I will be using the orange... :)

 

Best wishes

 

Pardon, what do you call the red (tape?) please?

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
I recommend begining the process of learning how to locate the 'correct ballpark' by annotating Price Bars two by two (using the examples shown earlier in the thread). Once one understands the correct procedure required for annotation, one can then begin to see how the process of refining one's technique brings things right into focus.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you for responding! I am following price annotations as per post #5 (as noted on my chart). Is there something I need to alter to understand the correct procedure please?

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rs5 said:
Is there something I need to alter to understand the correct procedure please?

 

1. In the Volume Pane, you'll need three fractals, not just two.

2. In the Price Pane, your trend lines do not show a consistant application of the fractal nature of the market.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
1. In the Volume Pane, you'll need three fractals, not just two.

 

ok Thank you

  Spydertrader said:

2. In the Price Pane, your trend lines do not show a consistant application of the fractal nature of the market.

- Spydertrader

 

I would appreciate it if you will point out any errors or inconsistancies when you see them so I will be alerted to correct. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  cnms2 said:
I guess ... a useful discussion would be to compare contexts: like 1335 and 1550 laterals, or 1120 and 1210 outside bars, or 1140 and 1525 spikes, etc.. Coming with clear examples, clearly explaining your thought process and conclusions, then asking for comments, would get everybody much more from this thread. :)

 

Was this in regard to the 7-28-09 ES chart? I don't have the OB's, stitches on mine. But it looks like the laterals and at least one spike referenced are from that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • 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/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.