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

...

So Why in Mr Black's chart does he use what he sees in the Price Pane to describe the volume? Am I missing something in this picture? The volume does not appear to reflect decreasing black, and increasing black.

 

See attached Chart

by the power of hindsight, here is my take

2012-10-19_1019.thumb.png.1ad562aa69105c90cb335e2431a01513.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this sounds like heresy to some old timers who studied all the journals in the other threads. But if you want to succeed with only three fractals, you need to re-read this thread and throw out everything you thought you learned from the old ET threads. A lot of the old tools, such as the moving average, dom bars and where they close, lateral movement, fbo's, etc, will only lead you astray. I know a lot of folks, like Mr Black, have adapted some of the old rules into a formula that works for them, which is great. But for those that are new, or still searching for success, I might suggest heeding spyder's advice and concentrate exclusively on this thread.

Edited by jbarnby
formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this sounds like heresy to some old timers who studied all the journals in the other threads. But if you want to succeed with only three fractals, you need to re-read this thread and throw out everything you thought you learned from the old ET threads. A lot of the old tools, such as the moving average, dom bars and where they close, lateral movement, fbo's, etc, will only lead you astray. I know a lot of folks, like Mr Black, have adapted some of the old rules into a formula that works for them, which is great. But for those that are new, or still searching for success, I might suggest heeding spyder's advice and concentrate exclusively on this thread.

 

Is there something I am doing from the old threads or is that a general comment to everyone?

 

BTW, thank you for your answer on volume. This is going to help many people here on TL that have been wrestling with the same question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As many of you know I have been working on these methods for years. Still chugging away at the rigorous learning curve. One issue I noticed recently, in the past, and that has come into the spot light again is how to correctly label the Gaussian formation , so that price can be annotated in sync correctly to reflect it. So after reading over the quote above, for more times than I can count, Spyder states, "In other words, the 'mental image' everyone needs to develop, with respect to a tape, traverse or channel, comes not from the Price Pane, but instead resides in the Volume Pane."

 

So Why in Mr Black's chart does he use what he sees in the Price Pane to describe the volume? Am I missing something in this picture? The volume does not appear to reflect decreasing black, and increasing black.

 

 

See attached Chart

When you annotate and analyze a chart (MAda) you have to remember that trends overlap, so there'll be a group of bars where you can see the old trend fading while the new one is gaining strength. The picture is affected by what's happening on several other fractals than the one you're trading, and in the context of step changes in the pace during the day.

First attachment is a superposition of mr_black's chart over Jack's money velocity diagram.

In the second attachment, I added a few annotations to the volume pane, to emphasize the overlapping of the fading red trend with the rising of the black trend.

5aa711625e4f1_ES12-0910_8_2009(5Min)Mrblacknoteswpace.thumb.png.bcd9970b1fb3af2dea164b5c34b8d5a3.png

5aa71162652b1_ES12-0910_8_2009(5Min)Mrblacknotes.thumb.png.20c51cee834bc259bb0782f26873d958.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chart was annotated real time today. As with other charts, in my experience, drawing the gaussians to determine the correct cycle order at the tape level can be confusing. Many times I catch mistake within a couple bars other times, the volume formations start to make less and less sense. Then that has been a red flag for me. I go back, and look at the tapes closely especially in the area of overlap between tapes. I know when the tapes overlap aka make the shift, it is during change aka R2R or B2B. Although more confusion arises when the lateral forms. With your typical tapes, FBP, SYM, Stiches, they combine to form a Tape Trend, at the Tape fractal level. With the laterals, you often have Tapes within Tapes ! Especially the laterals that seem to go on for several bars. Then, if you have a complete Tape fractal cycle, with the lateral, say the R2R 2B 2R cycle, how is one suppose to correctly draw the trend lines to represent this tape? Do you consider the lateral's upper and lower trend lines that form the Tape to represent the cycle that the volume pattern shows or do you connect the Tapes within the lateral Tape to form its own Tape trend?

 

Below is my chart for the day with three fractals annotated. I put crosses in gaussians that were wrong real time. You can see what I thought initially, and what conclusion I came to soon after. Since there is only one correct picture according to Spyder, I hope this is close to it.

 

10-19-2012-ES-full-day.png

Edited by Monkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you annotate and analyze a chart (MAda) you have to remember that trends overlap, so there'll be a group of bars where you can see the old trend fading while the new one is gaining strength. The picture is affected by what's happening on several other fractals than the one you're trading, and in the context of step changes in the pace during the day.

First attachment is a superposition of mr_black's chart over Jack's money velocity diagram.

In the second attachment, I added a few annotations to the volume pane, to emphasize the overlapping of the fading red trend with the rising of the black trend.

 

Ok, so basically in Mr. Black's chart he does not include the Tape fractal in his volume annotation? Just the Traverse and Channel? Had he included the Tape fractal, it would have shown the building blocks required to label the traverse correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there something I am doing from the old threads or is that a general comment to everyone?

 

 

It's a general comment to everyone. Within this thread, spyder speaks very specifically about how to reach pt 2 of ANYTHING. And he also talks about how each container must complete an order of events. Now, think of the things (from his old ET journals) that he DOESN'T discuss in this thread. Perhaps there's a very good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Monkman a few suggestions.Correct your price and volume colors.Degap your chart.hth

 

Does anyone still use Ninjatrader for the ES? To my knowledge it does not contain a de gap function in its GUI options. By chance, has anyone coded it in that would be willing to share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone still use Ninjatrader for the ES? To my knowledge it does not contain a de gap function in its GUI options. By chance, has anyone coded it in that would be willing to share?

 

Hello Monkman

 

Applying it as an "indicator",

"NoGapChart"

try Corey's post # 3409.

 

Kind Regards

FilterTip

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also try latest stepan7's work.

 

Yours works nicely. Going to upload my chart later tonight with it on my chart. The only weird thing is that it de gaps all historical bars, not just the previous day and opening bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This chart was annotated real time today. As with other charts, in my experience, drawing the gaussians to determine the correct cycle order at the tape level can be confusing. Many times I catch mistake within a couple bars other times, the volume formations start to make less and less sense. Then that has been a red flag for me. I go back, and look at the tapes closely especially in the area of overlap between tapes. I know when the tapes overlap aka make the shift, it is during change aka R2R or B2B. Although more confusion arises when the lateral forms. With your typical tapes, FBP, SYM, Stiches, they combine to form a Tape Trend, at the Tape fractal level. With the laterals, you often have Tapes within Tapes ! Especially the laterals that seem to go on for several bars. Then, if you have a complete Tape fractal cycle, with the lateral, say the R2R 2B 2R cycle, how is one suppose to correctly draw the trend lines to represent this tape? Do you consider the lateral's upper and lower trend lines that form the Tape to represent the cycle that the volume pattern shows or do you connect the Tapes within the lateral Tape to form its own Tape trend?

 

Below is my chart for the day with three fractals annotated. I put crosses in gaussians that were wrong real time. You can see what I thought initially, and what conclusion I came to soon after. Since there is only one correct picture according to Spyder, I hope this is close to it.

 

10-19-2012-ES-full-day.png

As a general suggestion: add the CP4 [clean page 4] to your annotations. It might help you sort the confusions! IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ES chart with real time annotations, and corrections. Volume bars scratched out with the blue lines represent what I believed to be mistakes real time, that did not show the correct picture. The laterals tripped me up quite a bit, which I am going to continue to focus upon. Building the tape fractal is still a challenge for me real time, but I think I am getting better. Below is my chart for today.

 

10-22-2012ESfullday2.png

 

BTW my time frame will be fixed soon, hopefully with the help of one of the above scripts. A couple years ago I hired a guy to help update the old one which worked, but turned out a little funky as you can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a general suggestion: add the CP4 [clean page 4] to your annotations. It might help you sort the confusions! IMHO.

 

I am not sure what you mean by CP4. Could you please explain this?

 

I found a Ninjatrader post about some code, and looks like a gold mine of information located here:http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/printthread.php?threadid=229669

 

Not sure which you are referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chart for today, annotated EOD. Around 13:00 you have the volume that goes against the cycle. This may be an indication that some of my volume annotations are wrong.

 

When looking back at the chart today, I was wondering how many Tapes are within the Traverse's R2R or B2B. I know that 2R or 2B there is only one Tape cycle within each Traverse. I would assume that there are two in the B2B or R2R. For example one tape cycle within R2, and one within 2R of the R2R. In the R2R traverse part of the volume cycle would the two tape cycles always show R2R 2B 2R within it? My chart shows a different picture around the 12:30 to 15:50 area, that is adding to the channel building confusion.

 

10-24-2012ESfullday.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yours works nicely. Going to upload my chart later tonight with it on my chart. The only weird thing is that it de gaps all historical bars...

yes that is how it's supposed to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chart for today, annotated EOD. Around 13:00 you have the volume that goes against the cycle. This may be an indication that some of my volume annotations are wrong.

 

 

Around 12:20 you have a FTT ending a long sequence. Around 14:00 you have another FTT at a higher price than the first, but your Gaussians show we're in a short sequence?!?

 

It seems to me the market is trying to tell you something... :missy:

 

Volume never goes against the cycle, it _drives_ the cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've had a lot of success with this method. While I'm grateful to spyder for his insights and guidance, most of my success came through self-discovery, using the basics described in this and other threads. I will upload a couple of recent Traverses in hopes that it might encourage others. Success will only come after you achieve complete understanding of how to build containers correctly and manage fractal nesting,

 

hello J, had a question about your chart dated 10-3. Bar 15:25 is clearly braking the purple containers right TL on increasing black volume and closes strongly outside of it yet you show the volume gaussian as a non dom move. would you be kind enough to explain

 

thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Around 12:20 you have a FTT ending a long sequence. Around 14:00 you have another FTT at a higher price than the first, but your Gaussians show we're in a short sequence?!?

 

It seems to me the market is trying to tell you something... :missy:

 

Volume never goes against the cycle, it _drives_ the cycle.

 

FJK, I re did some of the gaussians on the chart to reflect the FTT from the 12:20 and 14:05 mark. Below is the chart.

 

In regards to the volume cycle, I completely agree with you that volume drives the cycle. But why is it that we need confirmation of what price reflects when volume alone is inadequate to see the correct picture? For example, the 12:55, 13:00, and 13:05 bars are clearly incrementally increasing in volume. That part of the R2R 2B cycle tells us to draw a black decreasing sloping trend line in the volume pane, in order to match the current cycle. We know there are only two cycles, B2B 2R 2B, and R2R 2B 2R, both have to complete in order for a new cycle to begin. In this example, it appears that Price takes precedence over volume in reflecting the current cycle.

 

Furthermore, a second example is during 10:35, to 10:40, to 10:45, showing incrementally decreasing volume bars, in the R2R 2B 2R part of the cycle. This again is labeled with an increasing red trend line, when volume visually shows itself to be decreasing. It appears a shift/change is also occurring at this point because of the overlap in Tapes with a change to B2B.

 

Am I wrong on this? If not, how does one get confirmation real time that the tape fractal is correctly represented with this volume phenomenon? Thank you.

10-23-2012esrevision.thumb.png.0314a195fdccfa61a5ce85125ea9d4d3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that have pmed or posted here with helpful tips. I cannot thank you enough. Every little bit helps. Yesterday, I received a message that suggested I should annotate all the ten tapes, and connect them. That would alleviate the guessing of containers building to the traverse level. As pointed out, it appears I have been doing quite a bit of guess work.

 

In the chart below I annotated the AM real time, midday and afternoon were EOD. As suggested I annotated the fastest tapes, connected them (I hope I did this correctly), and then matched the volume cycles with the tapes.

 

I think if I can become consist with building the to block to form correct tapes, with correct volume(cycle) annotations, then it may make it much easier to label the volume for the traverses and channels.

 

 

10-25-2012ESamRTpmEOD.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... In the chart below I annotated the AM real time, midday and afternoon were EOD ...

Today Jack posted his trades for the first part of the day. See if they fit your tapes:

bar1 short

bar 5 long

bar 9 short

bar 17 long

bar 22 short

bar 29 long

bar 32 short

bar 36 long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today Jack posted his trades for the first part of the day. See if they fit your tapes:

bar1 short

bar 5 long

bar 9 short

bar 17 long

bar 22 short

bar 29 long

bar 32 short

bar 36 long

 

Very interesting, Jack is dam good at what he does not doubt. His long trade on bar 5 looks brutal though. It appears he held through around a 2pt loss at one point before he reversed on bar 9 to short.

 

The volume and tape annotations appear correct to me. I am guessing he held on bar 36 because of the lateral flaw, which from my understanding he holds through flaws. So my decreasing red , on the tape fractal may be pre mature.

 

I have made several trades in the past, but am not confident in my trading until I can consistently nest these fractals correctly real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting, Jack is dam good at what he does not doubt. His long trade on bar 5 looks brutal though. It appears he held through around a 2pt loss at one point before he reversed on bar 9 to short. ...

Jack "knows that he knows". Remember: he doesn't know what the price will do; he just stays always on the right side of the market, in the present.

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.