The Price / Volume Relationship

[TIKITRADER 10]

Looks like what the market builds . . .

 

 

Iterated function system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ehorn 10]

Some morning trading notes...

[ljyoung 10]

The market is very nice - it has told us this morning which way was the only correct way to annotate that snippet and so we can know WMCN

 

For those of you out there who don't know what is going on, ehorn is saying that he believes the market validated his interpretation of last evening. The way I interpret ehorn's interpretation is that the critters constructed by the market were firstly a down tape and then an up tape. This AM then the market MUST form a down tape. That's what it's been doing.

 

So where did romanus and me screw up?

 

Was it in calling the entity which preceded the down tape, a traverse? Or was it in the interpretation of the snippet itself? For the moment the latter has been chosen. Another possibility is that ehorn is wrong and that the construct formed from 15:45 on, is a traverse. Everyone should be able to see that this idea is DEAD wrong.

 

So if we are doing a down tape/up tape/down tape thingy, then that will eventually give us a down traverse and then we will start building an up traverse.

 

So what about ehorn's expessed logic in so far as explaining why he deduced tape not traverse? The best place to look, IMO, is in his Gaussians which are wildly different from romanus'. Do his Gaussians unequivocally show why his call was correct?

 

Just caught your morning so far ehorn. Congrats.

[ehorn 10]

So where did romanus and me screw up?...

 

And me... In RT I labeled the up move as a traverse. So my error occurred earlier in the day. And when you "think" you have built something - then you are looking for something else (despite the markets clarity).

 

Was it in calling the entity which preceded the down tape, a traverse?

 

For me... Yes

 

Just caught your morning so far ehorn. Congrats.

 

Thanks, The template just goes right on over to the YM-2M and lets one see leading points of change... (where have I heard that before) lol!

 

Perhaps we should keep the focus on ES-5M for now though...

[ljyoung 10]

And me... In RT I labeled the up move as a traverse. So my error occurred earlier in the day. And when you "think" you have built something - then you are looking for something else (despite the markets clarity). Yes indeed the 'think' thing is the rub. And if some wiseacre says, 'When you know that you know you don't think', I will contact the Scarponi brothers.

 

 

For me... Yes.

 

 

 

Thanks, The template just goes right on over to the YM-2M and lets one see leading points of change... (where have I heard that before) lol! No arguments here.

Perhaps we should keep the focus on ES-5M for now though... Or here.

 

Being lazy and flling in the quote.

 

I trust you had a tasty lunch. If you wouldn't mind, a practical question. How do you decide where to re-enter the market given that we are in up tape mode? Just anywhere and hold long or is there a specific point?

 

TIA

Edited August 5, 2009 by ljyoung
add a word; remove a really dumb statement. It's snack time here on the West coast.

[ehorn 10]

... How do you decide where to re-enter the market given that we are in up tape mode? Just anywhere and hold long or is there a specific point?

 

TIA

 

How far down the rabbit hole does one wish to go...

 

A prudent entry is on the ES-5M tape FTT.

[ljyoung 10]

For those of you out there who don't know what is going on ....

 

So if we are doing a down tape/up tape/down tape thingy, then that will eventually give us a down traverse and then we will start building an up traverse.

 

 

Neapolitan dynamite, nicotine and a few cleansing hacks later, let me iterate once again.

 

If what we had starting yesterday AM through today was: [up tape, down tape, up tape], [down tape, up tape], then what we are looking for is a down tape to complete a down traverse. Thank you ehorn. Iteration is good for the soul.

 

FWIW, my response to my earlier question to you about where to enter long would be, "Don't enter long. Wait for the short entry."

[Spydertrader 10]

If the market shows his/my interpretation to be in error ...

 

Think for a moment.

 

The market had already invalidated the interpretation. In addition, something must have indicated what to expect next, prior to, the market creating the posted snippet. - something which should have told you exactly what the market had to create.

 

This isn't a 'fork in the road' type of error as you postulate. Clearly, having the ability to differentiate what you believe exists in the chart snippet from that which the market created does help. However, the other, far more important lesson is that you missed something before the snippet developed - something which should have, and would have, told you exactly what the snippet had to be.

 

Lastly, one need only the ES five minute chart to see this something take place.

 

It is very clear to me Spyder, that since June of 2006, you have been iterated countless times by the market.

 

Nothing has changed from November 1998 (when Jack first began posting on USENET) - other than the removal of the MACD and The Stochastic Indicators - through the Question from Grob / Hershey threads and both Futures Journals.

 

While the focus may have changed (e.g. we now only discuss using an ES chart without medium or fine tools, while making decisions and taking action EOB vs Intra-Bar), if you feel the fundamental information presented has changed, it isn't a result of altering the information presented. It is instead a result of an alteration in the mental filters in the mind of the recipient.

 

So where did romanus and me screw up?

 

You simply drove right by the red barn and neglected to turn left.

 

- Spydertrader

[innersky 10]

Yes, but I have yet to completely code for all possible scenarios. Due to the limited capability of the Trade Navigator coding language ('TradeSense' doesn't currently allow for global / state variables or contain a 'looping' function), I only realize that the bar coloration code has missed a specific case scenario when I 'see' it form on the chart (When a specific example has no coding function, the current settings render the bar color blue instead of red or black). Once completed (hopefully, by the end of next quarter), I plan to make the changes available for free.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Why do you need a looping function? Just for bar coloration?

 

--

thanks,

 

innersky

[ljyoung 10]

Think for a moment.

 

The market had already invalidated the interpretation. In addition, something must have indicated what to expect next, prior to, the market creating the posted snippet. - something which should have told you exactly what the market had to create.

 

This isn't a 'fork in the road' type of error as you postulate. Clearly, having the ability to differentiate what you believe exists in the chart snippet from that which the market created does help. However, the other, far more important lesson is that you missed something before the snippet developed - something which should have, and would have, told you exactly what the snippet had to be. Yes. That would be that the thing which preceded the snippet was a tape not a traverse. The next thing then is to ascertain what was it about the pre-snippet tape that said, "This is a freaking tape".

Lastly, one need only the ES five minute chart to see this something take place. Indubitably.

 

 

 

Nothing has changed from November 1998 (when Jack first began posting on USENET) - other than the removal of the MACD and The Stochastic Indicators - through the Question from Grob / Hershey threads and both Futures Journals.

 

While the focus may have changed (e.g. we now only discuss using an ES chart without medium or fine tools, while making decisions and taking action EOB vs Intra-Bar), if you feel the fundamental information presented has changed, it isn't a result of altering the information presented. It is instead a result of an alteration in the mental filters in the mind of the recipient. The fundamentals haven't changed but rather the extent to which and manner in which the fundamentals are appreciated through your eyes have changed and continue to change. It's called iteration Spyder. Welcome to the club. If I did not appreciate your view of the market, I wouldn't be wasting my time being a participant in this thread.

 

 

 

You simply drove right by the red barn and neglected to turn left. That would be what I call a fork in the road error.

 

- Spydertrader

 

I am well aware that the interpretation was invalid. What I am presently doing is determining why that was so by focussing on discovering the meaningful differences between romanus' and ehorn's Gaussians and their associated trendlines.

[Spydertrader 10]

Why do you need a looping function? Just for bar coloration?

 

If the rudimentary 'TradeSense' programming language allowed for recursive functions of any kind, I wouldn't need any additional functionality, but currently, the TN programming language does not allow for such things due to how the 'engine' calculates functions upon chart load (or program startup).

 

In other words, I cannot 'gate' Bar Coloration on the current Bar based on the color of the previous bar - unless I do it case by case. Not only is such a paradigm time consuming, it also turns what should be 2 - 3 lines of code into 30 - 40 lines of code. Ugh!

 

I have a conference call scheduled for next week in an effort to stress (for about the sixth time) the importance of adding global / state variable and recursion functionality to the platform. A quick review of the TN forums indicates I am not the only one who wishes to see this addition.

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

I am well aware that the interpretation was invalid. What I am presently doing is determining why that was so by focussing on discovering the meaningful differences between romanus' and ehorn's Gaussians and their associated trendlines.

 

And what I am attempting to get you to see is that your first error, while certainly including the area you currently find yourself differentiating, begins in a location seperate from your current efforts.

 

You missed the red barn, not because you chose the incorrect portion of the fork in the road, but rather, because you cannot know a fork in the road even exists under your current view.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[ljyoung 10]

And what I am attempting to get you to see is that your first error, while certainly including the area you currently find yourself differentiating, begins in a location seperate from your current efforts.

 

You missed the red barn, not because you chose the incorrect portion of the fork in the road, but rather, because you cannot know a fork in the road even exists under your current view.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

As I've said above I appreciate your view of the market. Your statement above presumes that you know how I view the market. Maybe you do and maybe you don't. I don't really care. The test of my hypothesis about things which differentiate tapes from traverses simply failed. You know how that goes I'm sure.

 

Some months ago our mutual mentor mentioned that the ability to differentiate tapes from traverses is something which is problematic for many (dare I say most) of the devotees of the method (I am paraphrasing here). Certainly one of da t'ings I have learned this go round is how muy grande the tapes can be and all for a very good reason.

 

Right now (as I write) we are in one of those steenking laterals which thanks to your iterative efforts have become much more tolerable. It actually appeared that change was a comin' from inside the lateral but we know that we have to wait. Perhaps change has arrived now.

[zak 10]

In the annotation drill snippet (across the first 9 bars) we go:

 

A look at the 15m chart of the drill snip - I can see that an up traverse must be wrong. There is a r2r2b2r sequence which corresponds to the tape on ehorn's chart. Ruling out down and up traverse, it only can be a tape.

 

For me it's hard to grasp that sub-tape or sub-sub-tape gaussians become visible on a 5m chart in the way they do. When I look at the low volume levels, I get there.

 

What I get:

 

Sub-tape sequences and bars roaming free (getting away without touching a tape line) are a feature of low volume periods.

 

Before the snippet, on the way up, there is no 5m traverse change signal within the dom tape and a non-dom down tape sequence is what must come next.

 

The down tape begins with a stich (to dec vol bar) followed by non-dom internals, a sub-tape sequence leads to skinny r2r. The sub-up-tape is non-dom; seeing the 'b2b' @ EH and the low dec volume, and it breaks the sub-down-tape on dec volume.

 

After the tape P3, while unfolding, is it possible to know that the sequence will be built from a visible sub sequence or is it something to discover?

 

(At the traverse P3 the Ym provides a SfC [after breaking out of a lateral].)

[Spydertrader 10]

Your statement above presumes that you know how I view the market. Maybe you do and maybe you don't.

 

Seriously? Setting aside, for the moment, how simple it is to know where someone sits mentally, simply by reading the questions they ask, you've frequently posted your exact views on several topics leaving no room for error, interpretation or guesswork.

 

When such views represent a direct conflict with what the market dictates as true and accurate, one need not be Sherlock Holmes in order to figure things out.

 

In other words, there is no maybe about it.

 

I don't really care.

 

No problem. You wouldn't be the first (nor likely the last) to disregard my advice. Some eventually come to their senses and find themselves wondering why it took so damn long to listen, while others, simply, never make it back to the reservation.

 

Whichever path people choose matters very little to me. In fact, I, most certainly, care even less than you.

 

The test of my hypothesis about things which differentiate tapes from traverses simply failed.

 

Excellent. Except I haven't been discussing tapes vs traverses with respect to where you blew right past the red barn.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[rs5 10]

Wednesday 5 August 2009 - hi all, I have 3 fractals on the vol plane! Now, whether it is correct........

 

It seems that the second fractal should begin with R2R 2B 2R. But the tape formation does not support fractal 2's R2R formation (Bars 1,2,3). Please take a look at Bars 1, 2, 3 and give me your input on tape formation. Thank you!

Edited August 5, 2009 by rs5

[ljyoung 10]

Seriously? Setting aside, for the moment, how simple it is to know where someone sits mentally, simply by reading the questions they ask, you've frequently posted your exact views on several topics leaving no room for error, interpretation or guesswork. WTF does this mean? It's too early in the day to confabulate.

 

When such views represent a direct conflict with what the market dictates as true and accurate, one need not be Sherlock Holmes in order to figure things out.

 

In other words, IMO, there is no maybe about it.

 

 

 

No problem. You wouldn't be the first (nor likely the last) to disregard my advice. Some eventually come to their senses and find themselves wondering why it took so damn long to listen, while others, simply, never make it back to the reservation.

 

Whichever path people choose matters very little to me. In fact, I, most certainly, care even less than you.

 

 

 

Excellent. Except I haven't been discussing tapes vs traverses with respect to where you blew right past the red barn.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

I long ago gave up the 'think like I think and you'll know' way of doing things. As for knowing where I sit mentally, what you know is how I think compared to how you think as it relates to the market. If I don't match up, it's something I can live with quite comfortably.

 

As for posting what I think, it would seem to me that that is what a thread is about. When I err, I admit the error and move on. People who are never wrong, deceive not only themselves but those about them. It leads to confusion. As for who cares less, who cares.

 

I understand that you are speaking about something quite different than tapes vs traverses. Again, I don't really care what it is that you are talking about. So I will work on the delineation and perhaps the other 'separate' thing will appear in a dream some night.

 

So anyhows, EOD found me looking at an incomplete down tape. How about yourself?

[ehorn 10]

My view of the day...

[Ezzy 10]

However, the other, far more important lesson is that you missed something before the snippet developed - something which should have, and would have, told you exactly what the snippet had to be.

 

So it wasn't necessarily about the snippet (in a vacuum). It was the bigger picture, what came before it should have told us WMCN.

[Spydertrader 10]

So it wasn't necessarily about the snippet (in a vacuum). It was the bigger picture, what came before it should have told us WMCN.

 

That which developed before the snippet told you, in the most unambiguous way possible, what the snippet would be.

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

Wednesday 5 August 2009 - hi all, I have 3 fractals on the vol plane! Now, whether it is correct........!

 

You have improved significantly in a short period of time. Stay focused, and when you find yourself confused, wait until the market provides you certainty - one way or the other. Then, work your way back to locate the correct answer.

 

- Spydertrader

[NYCMB 10]

A Tape...

Volume...

 

Yep! (small rudders)

 

Hi ehorn,

 

Congratulations! You did hear what the market was telling. Could you answer the following squestions to help those people (me included) who can not read the market correcly yet?

 

1) Did you check Aug.4 & 5 ES charts before you write 'A TAPE...Volume', or, by looking at the snippet only?

 

2) Could you explain price/volume relationship from bar 1 through bar 9?

3) Does a trendline (@ 14:10) starting with Decreasing volume give any clue or signal?

4) Could you share your finding of WMCN regarding a Hitch (14:15 - 14:20 for example) with Increasing volume on the second bar?

 

TIA

[romanus 10]

... In RT I labeled the up move as a traverse. So my error occurred earlier in the day. And when you "think" you have built something - then you are looking for something else (despite the markets clarity).

Nice catch. I terminated my medium B2B at the wrong place and didn't become aware of annotation error until this morning when the up trend ended with the tape.:crap:

[Gregor_S 10]

This is my yesterdays chart. I'm anticipating pt.3 (traverse level) to arrive.

[ehorn 10]

So my daughter is watching Sesame Street this morning and I am reminded of a recent post.

 

"One of these things is not like the other..." lol!

 

So I am pondering... Is one of these things LIKE the other?

 

"Me love cookies!" lol!

 

FFJ Out.

Edited August 6, 2009 by ehorn