The Price / Volume Relationship

[Spydertrader 10]

I thought that the 2r had to close outside the b2b

 

It does. Perhaps, you only assume the 2R ends at Bar 1.

 

this is getting very subjective if we are going intrabar

 

Come on now.

 

You already found the answer (based on your view of the YM), but based on only using the ES (and not the YM together), you felt you could not 'see' that which exists.

 

O.K. Fair enough.

 

However, what reason (stumbling block or obstacle) prevents people from seeing things as they should (in this specific example)? We have several choices ...

 

1. The YM lied.

2. This whole process is really subjective and only works in hindsight.

3. Some people do not view Outside Bars correctly.

4. Some people still need to understand the words written in the picture of this post.

5. The person providing instruction could do a much better job at teaching.

 

Think, for a moment, what do the words "Intra-Bar Gaussian Shift" mean? A shift in the direction of a Gaussian Line.

 

- Spydertrader

[Ezzy 10]

Nicely done, daniel san.

 

As long as your Gaussian line weights have indicated nothing more than direction (Dom to Non-Dom to Dom), then yes, you have outlined the correct order of events.

 

Remember, we have not given a name to this specific container as of yet. Make sure your Gaussian annotations do not inadvertantly give an incorrect name to something, which in reality, exists as an entirely different thing (thereby sending you mentally 'off fractal').

 

- Spydertrader

Yes, no one should read anything into the gaussian weights in the pic, as they are just showing 2 levels, not tape - traverse.

 

To David's question, this area threw me because I was looking for increasing volume to confirm a point 3, for the last 2B. Is that not the case for sub-fractals? We can see the price movement only on the 5 min for this example.

[Spydertrader 10]

Unfortunately that post did not help me in any way because I have yet to understand what it is you are alluding to with respect to differentiating laterals

 

Well, I provided a crystal clear definition today for the creation of one type of Lateral. Last night, I posted that there existed three possible ways for such a lateral to form. Today, I suggested whether the very same type of Lateral formed on increasing or decreasing Volume might represent a subtle difference - in other words, a way one can know how the market plans to exit the lateral in question.

 

It now seems that the boundary of a lateral is defined by a bar within the lateral and something is implied by whether or not it has incr or decr volume. This could take forever..............

 

Once again, we are only discussing one type of Lateral (See Tiki's posted chart to see the difference).

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

To David's question, this area threw me because I was looking for increasing volume to confirm a point 3, for the last 2B. Is that not the case for sub-fractals? We can see the price movement only on the 5 min for this example.

 

Of course you looked for increasing Volume to confirm your Point Three, but what you failed to note was that the context was different here. Price found itself inside a Lateral. In such a case, the failure of the market to provide that which you anticipate is in fact, the signal for change.

 

I believe Jack used to call it, "What wasn't that?"

 

Again, the whole point of the exercise is for a trader to learn how to know which direction Price must head as it exits the Lateral.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[Ezzy 10]

FWIW, 12:50 today was another conforming lateral.

[TIKITRADER 10]

Here is the morning section with 9:45 lateral including overnight gap removed, blank chart for anyone who wants to annotate over this section for review.

[TheDon 10]

First time poster, long time reader.

Apologize for behind 'behind', but I am posting my first chart akin to Spyder's suggestion at beginning of thread to annotate tapes and formations. I have not done any annotation on volume yet.

 

Feedback or comments welcome.

[TIKITRADER 10]

Just to clarify the chart snippets I posted contained a gray shaded lateral and a red shaded lateral.

It is only the red shaded lateral that meets the requirements of the drill.

 

The gray shaded lateral that begins on bar 74 of previous market day is just for annotated purposes and has no like to the current topic of laterals.

[dkm 10]

Once again, we are only discussing one type of Lateral (See Tiki's posted chart to see the difference).- Spydertrader

 

OK, for the benefit of those trying to follow what is being discussed, the focus is on laterals that contain a bar with a high or low that matches the high or low of the first bar of the lateral.

 

Presumably this has some implication yet to be clarified.

[dkm 10]

... everyone should be able to create (in their mind's eye and on paper) three possible examples of a Lateral which conforms to the examples provided in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up), but also represent entirely different things from each other.- Spydertrader

 

Do you mean 3 examples of laterals whose boundary has been defined by a subsequent bar inside the lateral?

 

Do you consider a lateral that has a bar defining the lateral high as different from lateral that has a bar defining the lateral low?

 

Are we to consider dominant or non dominant as a difference?

 

Are we to consider volume on the first bar of the lateral as a difference?

 

Are we to consider volume on the bar that defines the lateral boundary as a difference?

 

Something else perhaps?

 

Trying to find "entirely different things from each other" without knowing what one is looking for is an ambiguous task.

[FilterTip 10]

Nicely done, daniel san.

 

As long as your Gaussian line weights have indicated nothing more than direction (Dom to Non-Dom to Dom), then yes, you have outlined the correct order of events.

 

- Spydertrader

 

 

Winner. Winner. Chicken Dinner. A subtle difference for sure.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Greetings Spyder and all.

Your replies (above) to Ezzy post#1243 and TIKITRADER post#1245 (charts attached) have me confused.

Their posts show a b2b2r2b sequence being discussed.

As their b2b starts at a different place and place the 2r of that sequence in a different place, how can they both be correct?

Also TIKITRADERs' chart from 15:55, where is the increasing black volume (2b) of the b2b, prior to it's 2r?

 

I would also be grateful for clarification on the questions dkm asks in his post#1260.

His post highlights similar confusion I share.

 

Lastly. You said in your post #1253

Well, I provided a crystal clear definition today for the creation of one type of Lateral

.

I'm getting very confused between all these lateral examples.

 

Could you, for my, and perhaps for the benefit of others, list exactly what that definition is and what "type of lateral"?

 

The lateral drill was posted on 22nd Dec 2009.

It's been some 4 to 5 weeks since.

 

I have not been able to differentiate between the 3 laterals in the Lateral drill and I don't see, within the thread, where any one else has?

(Apologies if I have missed this).

 

Grateful for your assistance.

 

Many thx.

[romanus 10]

... exactly what that definition is and what "type of lateral"?

 

I found these and I think they may qualify as a "rigorous definition";):

 

 

===============post 1239

 

Bar 1 (9:45) of this specific example closed in the same direction that the market provided dominance (in this specific case - B2B) for this specific fractal. The market did so prior to the formation of Bar 1 of this specific lateral.

 

Hence, we have a dominant lateral.

 

 

 

===============post 1229

 

Rather than saying, "the market tests the Lateral Boundary created at Bar 1," subsitute the words, "the market creates the Lateral Boundary with Bar 1."

[sambrown 10]

We had the same lateral we are discussing today at 11:10. It was created by a dom pt2 bar and exited the same direction as in WMCN.

[FilterTip 10]

I found these and I think they may qualify as a "rigorous definition";):

Greetings romanus.

And thx for the referenced posts.

 

So (post 1239) is about defining a a lateral as Dom or Non-dom.

 

Don't we need to know what fractal we are on in order to know what leg the lateral is being considered Dom or Non-dom within?

 

Are we saying that it has taken 4 to 5 weeks purely to understand the criteria that define a lateral as being Dom or Non- Dom?

 

I was hoping, and still am, that this new thread would help understand how to know what fractal we are on.

 

Post 1229. Yet more confusion for me.

I had previously been given to understand that a laterals' boundaries were defined by the high/low of the first bar of the lateral

Is this statement you quote now saying that we do not have a lateral until a bar touches either the high/low of the first bar that... eerrmm... how shall I phrase this... started the lateral?

It seems to be a contradiction to me.

 

Either the high to low of the first bar creates the lateral boundaries or they do not?

 

Many thx

Edited January 26, 2010 by FilterTip

[Spydertrader 10]

Feedback or comments welcome.

 

See Attached.

 

I added a 'light green' and a 'light gray' line to your annotations. Remember to always annotate in a thorough fashion. Once you learn to annotate 'adjacent bars' correctly (and thoroughly), move onto combining the individual containers in such a fashion where these containers match the Gaussian lines within the Volume Pane.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Edited January 26, 2010 by Spydertrader
added attachment

[dkm 10]

Is this statement you quote now saying that we do not have a lateral until a bar touches either the high/low of the first bar that... eerrmm... how shall I phrase this... started the lateral?

Many thx

 

I think the implication is that when a lateral CONTAINS a bar with a high or low equal to that of the first bar of the lateral then this is ONE type of lateral, as compared to the kind of lateral that occurs where no bars have a high or low equal to the first bar of the lateral. Only a guess mind you....

[FilterTip 10]

We had the same lateral we are discussing today at 11:10. It was created by a dom pt2 bar and exited the same direction as in WMCN.

 

Hello sambrown (what a voice by the way).

May I ask for your assistance?

Which lateral are we "discussing"?

 

Many thanks

[Spydertrader 10]

Only a guess mind you....

 

Once again, we are only discussing one type of Lateral (See Tiki's posted chart to see the difference).

 

and in my response to Sambrown

 

For now, we want to stay focused on this specific type of Lateral (from the Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up) setting aside (for another day and time) those which do not conform.

 

- Spydertrader

[FilterTip 10]

I think the implication is that when a lateral CONTAINS a bar with a high or low equal to that of the first bar of the lateral then this is ONE type of lateral, as compared to the kind of lateral that occurs where no bars have a high or low equal to the first bar of the lateral. Only a guess mind you....

dkm

Thx..that helps all be it we are still not in the realms of the definite.

Perhaps the words creates and with were a reason for my misunderstanding.

It implies to me that something has not yet been created.

 

Ok..thx..onward....

[Spydertrader 10]

Please point out what part of these instructions you find confusing ....

 

Rather than saying, "the market tests the Lateral Boundary created at Bar 1," subsitute the words, "the market creates the Lateral Boundary with Bar 1." Now, run this test across both examples under discussion (as well as other examples from The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). Does each example conform do this definition? Does today's (9:45 AM)?

 

Please post your efforts with respect to these instructions ....

 

Lastly, once one has determined the exact similarities of things, then one can look for the differences which indicate what must come next. Using the above (re-worded) defintion, everyone should be able to create (in their mind's eye and on paper) three possible examples of a Lateral which conforms to the examples provided in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up), but also represent entirely different things from each other.

 

- Spydertrader

[dkm 10]

and in my response to Sambrown

- Spydertrader

I presume that this response means that I am unwittingly considering more than one "type" of lateral. For the sake of clarity will you please define what this "one sort of lateral" is that you are referring to instead of repeatedly referring to other posts that were equally confusing.

 

Thanks

[sambrown 10]

FilterTip and dmk,

 

Please compare Tiki's yesterday's lateral post with today's 11:10am lateral. Today lateral boundary was created by 11:20 and 11:25 bars. Did you see the same in Tiki's post?

The differences between the two are the way the first bar was formed and the direction the price exited. I hope this help.

[Spydertrader 10]

For the sake of clarity will you please define what this "one sort of lateral" is that you are referring to instead of repeatedly referring to other posts that were equally confusing.

 

I do not understand what you find confusing about the following ...

 

Just to clarify the chart snippets I posted contained a gray shaded lateral and a red shaded lateral.

It is only the red shaded lateral that meets the requirements of the drill.

 

As such, please click on Tiki's posted chart ...

 

Once again, we are only discussing one type of Lateral (See Tiki's posted chart to see the difference).

 

I was also quite clear with this post

 

I assume (do to the differences in shading [red vs gray] of your example laterals) you understand the second lateral represents the current discussion lateral example (whereas the first example does not).

 

- Spydertrader

Edited January 26, 2010 by Spydertrader
fixed spelling error

[dkm 10]

I do not understand what you find confusing about the folowwing ...

 

As such, please click on Tiki's posted chart ...

 

- Spydertrader

Along with many others, I do not understand the point that you are trying to make.

[romanus 10]

...

So (post 1239) is about defining a a lateral as Dom or Non-dom.

 

Don't we need to know what fractal we are on in order to know what leg the lateral is being considered Dom or Non-dom within?

 

I believe you are absolutely correct. The quoted definitions presuppose that an observer is able to define what "fractal" IS in some way that is consistent across all contexts. That way one doesn't have to worry about defining what the "context" IS. Unfortunately, that knowledge eludes me and I am pretty much where Charles Kittel was when he wrote in the "Introduction to Solid State Physics": "We have not succeeded in finding or constructing a definition which starts out "A Bravais lattice is...": the sources we have looked at say "That was a Bravaise lattice."