The Price / Volume Relationship

[Spydertrader 10]

 

Is the first set of dates Spyder mentioned the equivalent to the second set of dates Spyder mentioned ?

 

Yes.

 

- Spydertrader

[TIKITRADER 10]

Yes.

 

- Spydertrader

 

I read this previous post

 

 

Yes, we certainly do. We also know the date and time said up channel ended as well.

 

- Spydertrader

 

 

 

I know you referred to this period as a channel. ( beginning with 10:10 AM on 7-13-2009, and continuing through until 15:30 PM on 8-5-2009 the market has provided just such an event )

 

I have this as a tape that ended, and now two tapes forming and creating a traverse. ( on a daily level )

I have a daily chart I have been building a daily up channel since an FTT around April 1 /09. The first dom traverse completed June 10th.

The final dom traverse is being constructed now.

If this is the answer I dont know what the h*ll the mental block was. I have this annotated already.

 

attached an image of a daily I had from July 16 09. Sorry nothing more recently full annotated.

(pink highlight has nothing to do with laterals )

 

Thanks

p.s if wrong I am going out drinking so heavy I will be reviewing charts with pink elephants

Edited August 18, 2009 by TIKITRADER
added date reply

[NYCMB 10]

Hi Spydertrader,

 

May I use Bar 72 to end a Traverse?

 

or

 

May I use Bar 72 to end a Tape? TIA

[TIKITRADER 10]

This is how I see the chart from my previous post would play out and finish fractals to build what I have been building as a channel.

This is just for illustrative purposes and not a price level prediction chart.

 

As price has already made significant moves since this image was taken ( arrows just added, again for illustration ),

for what has built ( as I have annotated ) a final dominant traverse ( of a daily channel build ) has completed a dominant move, is constructing a non dominant move , will complete sequences with a final dominant move, complete this traverse, and look for change and break out.

Edited August 18, 2009 by TIKITRADER
clarify

[rs5 10]

Daily chart - why is the purple channel not correct?

[Tams 20]

Daily chart - why is the purple channel not correct?

 

 

may I ask, why is it correct?

[rs5 10]

Here is attachment to go with daily channel drill.

 

Thank you nkhoi for pointing out the close of 8/5 daily bar outside of the blue channel marking the end of the blue channel.

 

8/6 purple point 3 forms and purple channel is created. 8/11 bar closes outside of the purple channel marking the end of the purple channel.

 

On vol panel, what are the correct fractals between 7/30 and 8/4 please?

Edited August 18, 2009 by rs5

[rs5 10]

may I ask, why is it correct?

 

LOL, the purple trendlines do look correct now. But something is wrong with the fractals in the vol pane and I am not sure what to do to fix it. Rrrrr

[rs5 10]

 

Will you post the chart that goes with this text please? Thank you!

[ljyoung 10]

Will you post the chart that goes with this text please? Thank you!

 

rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.

[Monkman 10]

This AM I felt in sync with the market. Was getting the transition points as they were happening. I am not sure if it was luck or just paying more attention to the volume bars, and formations as they develop. Instead of doing a forest view, as was taught for beginners before, I am zooming in all the way, at the tape fractal level with price and gaussians. Then as I see more unfold, I am trying to expand my picture to traverses. When thinking at the fractal level, and how it should develop, in addition to keeping in mind when the traverse will form is a lot of information to process at once. Sometimes, I think I have the right amount of gaussian formations to move from the tape, by starting to draw traverse lines, but then if I labeled the gaussians incorrectly at the tape fractal level, I encounter a problem, that requires more mental adjustments. As I have said before I think the biggest obstacle is labeling the gaussian formations correctly, since they do not develop all pretty and in order as pictured in the model.

[sscott 10]

My chart for today, and, any comments appreciated...

[rs5 10]

Tuesday 18 August 2009

 

What is correct fractal for series of laterals in an up tape?

[rs5 10]

rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.

 

LOL, Thank you ljyoung! I had no idea those belong together. Let me review.

[rs5 10]

rs5, the 'chart' is immediately above the annotation post. It is a rather important one and following on from Jack's suggestion, I have a copy dutifully placed on the inside of my 'daily work' 3-ring binder, facilitating the 'slow osmosis' process by which I learn.

 

"Clean Page 4" does not look like the chart that goes with "Clean Page 1". There are no gaussians shown on Clean Page 4. If you mean another chart, will you show link or post? Thank you.

[ljyoung 10]

"Clean Page 4" does not look like the chart that goes with "Clean Page 1". There are no gaussians shown on Clean Page 4. If you mean another chart, will you show link or post? Thank you.

 

In this particular case you don't need Gaussians to understand what is being said. Use Spyder's Gaussian representations. While at first glance Jack's chart - without the Gaussians - may appear rather trivial, I assure you it isn't. In fact it readily explains one of your questions from earlier today. Figure it out.

[nkhoi 10]

Will you post the chart that goes with this text please? Thank you!

[jbarnby 10]

Spyder,

 

I have a question about the attached snippet. Specifically, the 1310 bar on 08/10 (highlighted in yellow). From time to time I run across an area such as this, where I am unable to ftt the bar on any fractal. The gaussians support that this area completes the 2-3 movement, but is that possible with the ve? I'm very familiar with the valuable discussion between Romanus and PointeOne on this topic.

 

Does such an event tell me that I have taped the area incorrectly? What am I missing here?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

Edited August 19, 2009 by jbarnby

[dkm 10]

If we have a b2b2r2b gaussian sequence on every fractal, could someone please explain where is the b2b between p1 and p2 of the tapes illustrated?

[jbarnby 10]

Correction to my above post. The highlighted bar is on 08/05...as shown in the snippet. I incorrectly referred to this as 08/10. Sorry for any confusion...it was a late night!

[ljyoung 10]

If we have a b2b2r2b gaussian sequence on every fractal, could someone please explain where is the b2b between p1 and p2 of the tapes illustrated?

 

The b2b is intrabar.

[ljyoung 10]

Spyder,

 

I have a question about the attached snippet. Specifically, the 1310 bar on 08/10 (highlighted in yellow). From time to time I run across an area such as this, where I am unable to ftt the bar on any fractal. The gaussians support that this area completes the 2-3 movement, but is that possible with the ve? I'm very familiar with the valuable discussion between Romanus and PointeOne on this topic.

 

Does such an event tell me that I have taped the area incorrectly? What am I missing here?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

 

There are two processes taking place here (as there always are), an upthing and a downthing. The downthing broke (pierced and closed below) the RTL of the upthing but that's as far as it went because the downthing had completed. Multiple b2b's followed, occasioning, due to the magnitude of the price change, a fanout of the upthing RTL and the creation of a 'new' P2 for the upthing. The terminal bar of the completed downthing was in fact a 'new' P3 of the upthing but as we have already noted, a 'new' P2 for the upthing has been formed and so now we are looking for another 'new' P3 for the upthing.

 

As to your question as to why this entire process was not associated with an FTT of the 'downthing', one answer would be another question. Why should it be?

[jbarnby 10]

As to your question as to why this entire process was not associated with an FTT of the 'downthing', one answer would be another question. Why should it be?

 

Spyder recently referenced the discussion between PointOne and Romanus. In his reference, he stated "Within that exchange, one can learn what sequence of events must develop at each 'Point' (1, 2 or 3). In other words, something must happen on one fractal in order to form the 'Point' (1, 2, or 3) of the next slower fractal above it."

 

What I took away from this post is that an FTT is required on one fractal so that we can form a point 1,2,3 on the higher fractal. Spyder used the word "must", and I know he chooses his words deliberately. In my snippet I cannot annotate such an event, which leads me to conclude that the 1310 bar cannot be a pt 3 on my trading fractal.

 

All I'm trying to do LJ is advance thru another plateau while seeking a better understanding of the method. Perhaps I'm merely struggling with what something "looks" like vs what has actually taken place. Ahhh...the wonderful process of differentiation.

 

I'm certainly interested in feedback from anyone on this issue.

[dkm 10]

The b2b is intrabar.

 

Then what is the point of drawing the gaussian?? And how is one supposed to track the b2b2r2b sequence at L1?

Edited August 19, 2009 by dkm

[ljyoung 10]

Spyder recently referenced the discussion between PointOne and Romanus. In his reference, he stated "Within that exchange, one can learn what sequence of events must develop at each 'Point' (1, 2 or 3). In other words, something must happen on one fractal in order to form the 'Point' (1, 2, or 3) of the next slower fractal above it."

 

What I took away from this post is that an FTT is required on one fractal so that we can form a point 1,2,3 on the higher fractal. Spyder used the word "must", and I know he chooses his words deliberately. In my snippet I cannot annotate such an event, which leads me to conclude that the 1310 bar cannot be a pt 3 on my trading fractal.

 

All I'm trying to do LJ is advance thru another plateau while seeking a better understanding of the method. Perhaps I'm merely struggling with what something "looks" like vs what has actually taken place. Ahhh...the wonderful process of differentiation.

 

I'm certainly interested in feedback from anyone on this issue.

 

You have said it yourself that the 13:10 bar can't be a P3 on your trading fractal which is exactly what I said, albeit in a slightly different fashion. You could fan out the RTL (because the break was made on increased volume) only after the 'new' P2 was made. So was the fact that you couldn't construct an FTT with the 13:10 bar in effect telling you that it couldn't be the 'real' P3 and that you should anticipate a 'new' P2 somewhere down the road, which is in fact what heppened?