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

A little more food for thought. If you had a valid 2 bar tape, (rare) how could you have four volume bars go dec blk -> inc blk -> dec red -> inc blk? b2b2r2b. So the cycle happens within those 2 bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Ezzy said:

I don't see where dec red tape goes to a dec black tape. Could you doctor the pic?

 

Thanks very much for the replys!

 

With the dec red to dec black I was trying to describe how I saw the bars moving inside the single down tape. In effect trying to see the R2R2B2R within the Tape, but I see now what you are saying about the sequence not always being visible on the 5min.

 

  Ezzy said:
A little more food for thought. If you had a valid 2 bar tape, (rare) how could you have four volume bars go dec blk -> inc blk -> dec red -> inc blk? b2b2r2b. So the cycle happens within those 2 bars.

 

This is a perfect insight to my question, and this example opened my eyes to what you are saying. :)

 

  Ezzy said:

 

I am really glad you referenced the "Clean Page 1" while explaning this because I have been looking there while trying to wrap my head around Tape volume fractals. Which leads to another question I have regarding the wording on clean page 1.

 

Part 3 refers to the Gaussian part 1 (rising) and part 2 (falling). Does the part 1 and part 2 combined refer to the R2R of the Tape, or would part 1 be the R2R and part 2 be 2B?

 

Thanks again for the assistance. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I hate to alter my view yet again, this whole down thing is beginning to feel like medium R2R. Based on that subjective measure coupled with the possibility that p2 of monday's down traverse might have occured during the first 15 minutes of the day, the possibility that yesterday was an up traverse beginning to look very promising,

5aa70f48115fc_10_28_2009(5Min).thumb.png.1d76a4cfb1fac2174d47ace9b4dcbd09.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Breakeven said:
I am having a problem reconciling two of the images that Spyder posted near the beginning of the thread. One image shows a Traverse, with Tapes and Channel labeled. The second image is the volume pane fractals. I have combined the images for attachment.

 

For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse.

Me neither. Consider the possibility that in THIS particular case they don't exist.

 

 

 

  Breakeven said:
...From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes.
Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the image is different from the meaning that this image was intended to convey and that the qualifiers highlighted in red represent something you have assumed. My assumption is different and if you replace the 'each' qualifier with 'some', and the 'should' qualifier with 'might', you might arrive at the alternative point of view.

 

 

 

  Breakeven said:

So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence.

One school of thought is that the gaussians match the trendlines and not the actual volume bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Breakeven said:
... Part 3 refers to the Gaussian part 1 (rising) and part 2 (falling). Does the part 1 and part 2 combined refer to the R2R of the Tape, or would part 1 be the R2R and part 2 be 2B?

 

Thanks again for the assistance. :)

My interpretation is that a gaussian is a volume formation that has an increasing slope followed by a falling slope. We can see gausians formed of volume bars, of groups of bars, of groups of groups of bars, ... x2X2y2X is another type of volume formation. If x, y represent decreasing volume, and X, Y increasing volume, then the gaussian is X2y, or dominant followed by non-dominant. So we have two types of gaussians R2b in down trends and B2r in up trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  romanus said:
... One school of thought is that the gaussians match the trendlines and not the actual volume bars.
By this I understand that when trendlines and gaussians are correctly drawn they should make sense. This refers both to the volume bar trends and to their pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reviewing the charts I have annotated recently, I now see that all my annotations are one fractal "slow". By trying to draw a complete volume cycle for every Tape using 5min end of bar data I have been getting Tapes where a Traverse is actually present. In effect, my "sub-fractals" are actually Tapes and my Tapes are actually Traverses ect.

 

I just need to get it through my head that a Traverse is the fastest fractal that will always have a full visible gaussian cycle.

 

The bad news is that I have drawn a crap load of line that I have "labeled" wrong.

 

The good news is that since this is all fractal I just need to convince my brain to label these same lines one fractal faster. That should put all my goats in a row :) For this issue at least!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  romanus said:

Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the image is different from the meaning that this image was intended to convey and that the qualifiers highlighted in red represent something you have assumed. My assumption is different and if you replace the 'each' qualifier with 'some', and the 'should' qualifier with 'might', you might arrive at the alternative point of view.

 

I think this is exactly where I went wrong. In the volume fractal diagram I took the "skinny" lines on one leg of the "medium" to mean that they would be visible for every leg. I now believe those lines are drawn on only one leg to indicate they are only visible on some legs.

 

Thanks for the help! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  cnms2 said:
My interpretation is that a gaussian is a volume formation that has an increasing slope followed by a falling slope. We can see gausians formed of volume bars, of groups of bars, of groups of groups of bars, ... x2X2y2X is another type of volume formation. If x, y represent decreasing volume, and X, Y increasing volume, then the gaussian is X2y, or dominant followed by non-dominant. So we have two types of gaussians R2b in down trends and B2r in up trends.

 

 

I think I understand what you are saying, but it is late enough tonight that my brain isn't registering correctly. Give me some time on this one and I may pester you with more questions on this subject. :)

 

Thanks very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe romanus’s chart represents the correct view of the past few days and that my view was wrong. I need to find out why I do not monitor correctly. I guess the first thing is that I do not pay enough attention to volume and that my concept of what makes a fractal is not correct.

 

I have changed some things and this is my view for yesterday, done after market close. The next step in my sequence is pt.2 on a traverse level.

28_10@ESZ9.thumb.gif.0011af750963a1d89151a957f919733b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Gregor_S said:
I believe romanus’s chart represents the correct view of the past few days and that my view was wrong. I need to find out why I do not monitor correctly. I guess the first thing is that I do not pay enough attention to volume and that my concept of what makes a fractal is not correct.

 

I have changed some things and this is my view for yesterday, done after market close. The next step in my sequence is pt.2 on a traverse level.

If you attempt to hallucinate things in the same fashion as I do - be prepared for some big disappointments. As of now, what was expected to be a skinny p2 to p3 of the traverse, has broken the original tape trendline and started the climb towards the point two of the up traverse - which means the 1255 yesterday was point 2 of the down traverse which is extremely troubling since it is inside the lateral that doesn't look any different from any other lateral. The only thing that seems to hold true universally for all contexts - is that nothing is what it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not go so far as to say big disappointment, more like realizations of the truth ;)

 

I find it amusing to see that I actually marked the 12:50-13:45 move on my volume pane yesterday aftermarket. But I dismissed it as a lower fractal move during RvR because of the high red volume later and the fact that it had such a strange position inside a big lateral.

 

It now looks to me like I missed the correct annotations and switched fractals – again. Ah, back to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My chart from the last two days. Pretty standard.

 

My traverse point 2 today is the only possible solution. Ask yourself why it can't be the 1025, 1115 or 1135 bar. (and yes, you can apply the correct answer to all point 1 --> 2 movements) ;)

091029-MM.thumb.jpg.8a16b91ada33856d1235bbb3b4628311.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Gregor_S said:
I believe romanus’s chart represents the correct view of the past few days and that my view was wrong. I need to find out why I do not monitor correctly. I guess the first thing is that I do not pay enough attention to volume and that my concept of what makes a fractal is not correct.

 

I have changed some things and this is my view for yesterday, done after market close. The next step in my sequence is pt.2 on a traverse level.

 

A word of advice, don't look at other peoples chart in this thread (especially not mine :roll eyes:) to establish what is right and wrong. The market tells you. Every single day. If you look at the channel fractal for the last couple of days, you should come to a clear conclusion about your annotations are correct or not.

 

When the market tells you that - perhaps - you are missing something. Ask yourself why. Why is the key. The key to applying it to your own trading - in realtime. For me, it is impossible to get to 'why' by looking at other peoples charts. YMMV of cause :missy:

 

Lastly, why have you chosen not to annotate all three fractals as advised in the beginning of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello fellow traders,

 

there are some volume gaussians examples that spydertrader had posted from 2007

on another forum. it does not show strict black2black2red2black, for example,

sometimes its black2black2red2red. is this a shortcut or out of date? has anyone

ever found an exception to bb2r2b trend?

 

also for ninjatrader, how do you get the up arrow to plot on the volume window?

is it done by indicator or manually?

 

thanks.

Edited by rightbyleft
another question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rightbyleft said:
hello fellow traders,

 

there are some volume gaussians examples that spydertrader had posted from 2007

on another forum. it does not show strict black2black2red2black, for example,

sometimes its black2black2red2red. is this a shortcut or out of date? has anyone

ever found an exception to bb2r2b trend?

 

thanks.

 

 

this has been explained, I think about a month ago.

if you have been following the progress, I am sure you have ran into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rightbyleft said:
hello fellow traders,

 

there are some volume gaussians examples that spydertrader had posted from 2007

on another forum. it does not show strict black2black2red2black, for example,

sometimes its black2black2red2red. is this a shortcut or out of date? has anyone

ever found an exception to bb2r2b trend?

 

also for ninjatrader, how do you get the up arrow to plot on the volume window?

is it done by indicator or manually?

 

thanks.

Referring to your second question;

it is done by indicator pp_jhmvolume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I'm sure most of you will remember me from Spyder's journal over at Elite Trader. Spyder PM'ed me a while ago to invite me to partake in the discussion here at Trader's Laboratory.

 

I'm wondering if you guys keep in touch during market hours on Skype or a in chatroom. It'd be nice to have some conversation with other traders who use the same price/volume method in their trading.

 

Ferdinand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  rs5 said:
Friday 30 October 2009
On trending days, sometimes it's harder to see the three leg sequences on each of the three monitored fractals, but they're still there.

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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