The Price / Volume Relationship

[jbarnby 10]

Equality comes from volume and not price.

 

Not exactly correct. Volume LEADS price. You need both to determine equality. No exceptions.

 

And for the record, the blue and red containers are absolutely equal and of the same fractal.

 

Volume moves price through the blue container with pts 1,2,3 ftt and a completed volume cycle. Price then exits that container and builds a FF container down to 1035. The first (skinny red) container is not equal to the blue. It has pts 1,2,3 ftt but no volume cycle. We have an implied R2R achieved from crossing the blue RTL, but no increasing volume within that container to complete the cycle. 1025 is actually decreasing volume because volume must be tested against the first bar of the sym pen (1015). As such, one knows with absolute certainty that the skinny red container is a faster fractal than the blue. And as further price/volume action develops one also knows that we will require THREE of these ff containers, each of them with pts 1,2,3 ftt, to complete the slower red container. The slower red container is indeed absolutely equal to the blue.

 

I've no doubt that some of you will debate the assertions made in the preceding paragraph. I could care less. The reality is that these facts came directly from Spyder during an hour long video chat with myself and my study partner five years ago. It is what it is and there's no other (correct) way to view the market.

Edited June 6, 2015 by jbarnby

[Mandelbrot 10]

please ignore re-post.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Mandelbrot

[Mandelbrot 10]

Not exactly correct. Volume LEADS price. You need both to determine equality. No exceptions.

 

And for the record, the blue and red containers are absolutely equal and of the same fractal.

 

Who is is disputing that? For the record, Spyder clearly stated that. The reason of equality is under discussion. Blue container volume cycle, red container volume cycle.

 

volume cycle one container = volume cycle three containers

 

Focus on the words volume cycle.

 

What are you struggling to see?

[jbarnby 10]

Who is is disputing that? For the record, Spyder clearly stated that. The reason of equality is under discussion. Blue container volume cycle, red container volume cycle.

 

volume cycle one container = volume cycle three containers

 

Focus on the words volume cycle.

 

What are you struggling to see?

 

You disputed it. You implied that the red container was demoted because what preceded it was a ff. Your words, not mine.

[Mandelbrot 10]

Not exactly correct. Volume LEADS price. You need both to determine equality. No exceptions.

 

And for the record, the blue and red containers are absolutely equal and of the same fractal.

 

Volume moves price through the blue container with pts 1,2,3 ftt and a completed volume cycle. Price then exits that container and builds a FF container down to 1035. The first (skinny red) container is not equal to the blue. It has pts 1,2,3 ftt but no volume cycle. We have an implied R2R achieved from crossing the blue RTL, but no increasing volume within that container to complete the cycle. 1025 is actually decreasing volume because volume must be tested against the first bar of the sym pen (1015). As such, one knows with absolute certainty that the skinny red container is a faster fractal than the blue. And as further price/volume action develops one also knows that we will require THREE of these ff containers, each of them with pts 1,2,3 ftt, to complete the slower red container. The slower red container is indeed absolutely equal to the blue.

 

I've no doubt that some of you will debate the assertions made in the preceding paragraph. I could care less. The reality is that these facts came directly from Spyder during an hour long video chat with myself and my study partner five years ago. It is what it is and there's no other (correct) way to view the market.

 

 

There is no other way to view the market. Blue = Red . What are you not getting? I suggest you go back and listen to your hour long skype session. You have missed something critical. Order of events and context. Increasing volume over a sym pen is just that. It is not an automatic return to dominance. Volume leads Price. Always. And without exception.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Mandelbrot

[jbarnby 10]

There is no other way to view the market. Blue = Red . What are you not getting? I suggest you go back and listen to your hour long skype session. You have missed something critical. Order of events and context. Increasing volume over a sym pen is just that. It is not an automatic return to dominance. Volume leads Price. Always. And without exception.

 

I SAID blue equals red. You are the one who CLEARLY disputed it when you asserted that one is a FF and one is a Traverse. What are YOU not getting?

 

I was obviously misguided when I read some of your post from May 2015 and assumed you were still struggling and/or had unanswered questions. Clearly you have it all under control and are prepared to lead the learning for those still working to resolve issues. I wish you well and won't clutter your thread any further.

 

But for those of you still learning, Mandelbrot's assertion that Increasing volume over a sym pen is just that is absolutely incorrect. Increasing volume following a formation MUST be compared to the first bar of the formation. Spyder never published that information in this thread - but he said it to our group a hundred times. You can bank on that being the absolute truth.

Edited June 6, 2015 by jbarnby

[Mandelbrot 10]

You disputed it. You implied that the red container was demoted because what preceded it was a ff. Your words, not mine.

 

Please dont put words in my mouth, I did not demote anything. What does that even mean.

 

At the end of the blue container, I had a FF traverse. WMCN but a FF traverse to make a traverse, not a traverse but a faster fractal traverse. This method is binary 0,1

 

I will show you the beauty in this method, lets say you thought the blue container was a traverse (hypothetical) Very soon afterwards the market will tell you WWT. Spyder stressed that all the time and it allowed you to get back on the right side of the market.

 

(The red container on its own is a traverse ignoring everything else. I was pointing out the red container is equal to the blue container. The red container cannot be a traverse (in this context) since the blue container was not a traverse.) Food for thought

 

WMCN = What must come next

WWT = What wasn't that

 

Why are you still struggling with this after the skype conversation ?

 

Spyder discussed the increasing volume over pennants in the Vegas conference. It was not a secret. It just means that, like decreasing volume just means that. Context is KING. Learn to differentiate.

 

PS - Arguing with a troll is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig, after a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it.

 

You were not at Vegas or NY when they did the introductions. So what is your group exactly?

Edited June 6, 2015 by Mandelbrot

[jbarnby 10]

Lastly, for any of you (except Mandelbrot) still hard at work trying to put together the pieces of this method - I would be happy to give you my time this summer. I typically don't trade as much during the summer months as I enjoy spending the days with my son, so I have quite a bit of free time. I maintain several blogs on this method and would be delighted to share this information with anyone serious about learning. But I will not share any further info on this thread. It's not worth the hassle. There is no charge - this is completely free and will only require your time and dedication to learning. If interested, send me a private message along with any questions you have regarding my experience/knowledge. Best to all.

[Mandelbrot 10]

Lastly, for any of you (except Mandelbrot) still hard at work trying to put together the pieces of this method - I would be happy to give you my time this summer. I typically don't trade as much during the summer months as I enjoy spending the days with my son, so I have quite a bit of free time. I maintain several blogs on this method and would be delighted to share this information with anyone serious about learning. But I will not share any further info on this thread. It's not worth the hassle. There is no charge - this is completely free and will only require your time and dedication to learning. If interested, send me a private message along with any questions you have regarding my experience/knowledge. Best to all.

 

Déjà vu, remember end of last year, weekend workshop? Everyone knows you make your money by "mentoring" as opposed to trading. If you cant make money trading, do the next best things and sell related products. A joke among real traders.

 

I would love to hear back from those that attended or anyone else you have mentored.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Mandelbrot

[outsource 10]

Lastly, for any of you (except Mandelbrot) still hard at work trying to put together the pieces of this method - I would be happy to give you my time this summer. I typically don't trade as much during the summer months as I enjoy spending the days with my son, so I have quite a bit of free time. I maintain several blogs on this method and would be delighted to share this information with anyone serious about learning. But I will not share any further info on this thread. It's not worth the hassle. There is no charge - this is completely free and will only require your time and dedication to learning. If interested, send me a private message along with any questions you have regarding my experience/knowledge. Best to all.

 

 

did spyder discuss the ''subtleties'' of the method with you?

[wilddog 10]

Looks like he is at it again. I am sure jbarnby is breaking the forum rules by not registering as a vendor.