The Price / Volume Relationship

[rs5 10]

Tuesday 6 April 2010

[rs5 10]

Wednesday 7 April 2010

[rs5 10]

Thursday 8 April 2010

[rs5 10]

Friday 9 April 2010......Have a great weekend all......or is everyone on vacation already?

Edited April 9, 2010 by rs5

[MKTr 10]

7 through 9 April 2010 5' ES.

 

MK

[dkm 10]

So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?

[rs5 10]

Monday 12 April 2010

[rs5 10]

  gucci said:

Some thoughts on PV relationship in a fractal paradigm.

 

 

Thank you for the animated diagram. I am still trying to understand it.

 

Here is a simplified version of one area of a fractal diagram....obviously more fractal layers above and below what is shown here. Does the green zone appear familiar?

[gucci 10]

  dkm said:

So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?

 

Hi dkm, I'm glad you are still sticking around. To answer your question, you can simply change your way of "seeing" the movement of price from "up" and "down" to "dom" and "nondom" (or to "from right to left" and "from left to right" respectively). Think about it. Do you recall Jack speaking about horizontal orientation?

 

This jem from Spydertrader clarifies the topic. HTH.

 

Forums - Iterative Refinement

Edited April 13, 2010 by gucci
Link

[rs5 10]

Tuesday 13 April 2010

[ptunic 10]

I recently moved from Los Angeles to Atlanta, didn't have time to look at charts for a while. Hoping to get back into the swing of things.

 

Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

[MomentumMike 10]

Wednesday, 4/14/10

 

I may be missing a level of Gaussians between the top two levels. Maybe not. I'm not sure what else to do with them when I see a container (starting today at 10:20) that is traversed many times.

 

Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.

[Spydertrader 10]

  MomentumMike said:

Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.

 

Based on your annotations, you have a non-dominant movement (Points Two to Three) of a container beginning at 15:25 PM Tuesday and ending at 10:20 AM Wednesday (All times Eastern and [close of] ES bars). This movement represents a certain fractal level. Since all markets operate on a fractal basis, the market must have created the same fractal prior to said container, as well as, another (equal sized) container afterwards - in order to complete the sequence of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant. Within each of these fractals, the market must also create faster fractals using the same exact rule set of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant.

 

Based on your Gaussian Annotations, you have 'jumped fractals' as a result of not having the ability to 'see' that which the market has indicated as continuation, rather than, change.

 

Use the non-dominant container as a template. How does it differ from the annotations you have attributed to the same level container after the non-dominant container reached completion?

 

- Spydertrader

[MomentumMike 10]

  Spydertrader said:

Use the non-dominant container as a template. How does it differ from the annotations you have attributed to the same level container after the non-dominant container reached completion?

 

Thanks very much, Spyder. I think I see my error. My non-dominant move leading to P3 in my non-dominant container has a peak volume that exceeds that of my preceding dominant move (in this case, P1 to P2) in the same container. This is not the case for any of the non-dominant moves within my subsequent dominant container. I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

[Spydertrader 10]

  MomentumMike said:

I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

 

You now have a hypothesis.

 

More importantly, you have created a data set which you can apply to any like container in an effort to confirm (or invalidate) said hypothesis. All that remains is to determine whether (or not) you have assembled a sufficient data set.

 

Note all possible parameters which enabled the creation of this container under discussion. At some point in the future, you will see either the exact same set of parameters create the exact same entity, or you'll see a subtle difference indicating that which the market is building has not yet completed.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[dkm 10]

  MomentumMike said:

I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:

[MomentumMike 10]

  dkm said:

Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:

Thanks, dkm. I have been looking at this - testing the idea on older charts. It looked to me like I was incorrect, but, I was struggling with whether my "baseline" annotations/context invalidated the tests in the first place.

 

I suppose I'm guilty of over-simplifying. Although, one of the simplest rules of all, "one bar does not a formation break", would have prevented that non-dominant container from appearing on my chart. (Note to all: I have no idea if that rule is truly valid or, if it is, when it applies.)

 

Thanks for saving me some time, dkm. I already put in just about every hour of each day. Now, it's time for more coffee, due to the smilie in your reply. I know I'm going to need it.

[rs5 10]

Thursday 15 April 2010

[Spydertrader 10]

  rs5 said:

Thursday 15 April 2010

 

Look closely at the final 6 bars of the day. Do you see anything you might want to annotate?The rest of your chart looks very nice.

 

- Spydertrader

[rs5 10]

  Spydertrader said:

Look closely at the final 6 bars of the day. Do you see anything you might want to annotate?The rest of your chart looks very nice.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you!

 

. . . . . . . . . .

[ptunic 10]

Thursday, April 15, 2010.

[MomentumMike 10]

  rs5 said:

Thursday 15 April 2010

  ptunic said:

Thursday, April 15, 2010.

rs5 and ptunic,

 

I am working on separating fractal levels. I think I have a tendency to promote Gaussian lines when they should only be visible at lower fractal levels. I have a question regarding a particular annotation that you both made. If you have a moment and don't mind me asking, please see the attached.

[MomentumMike 10]

  rs5 said:

Thursday 15 April 2010

  ptunic said:

Thursday, April 15, 2010.

Spyder, rs5, ptunic and all,

 

Another, more important, fractal level question...

 

I have a carry-over up-container that was originally built many days ago by the same fractal level that revealed four containers on 4/15. I am trying to reconcile this and the existence of the down container with P1 at 11:05 and P3 at 15:05. The down container was built by the same fractal level as the CO up-container, but the down container resides inside of the CO up-container. Is this a real possibility or did I somehow botch the up container? It sure seems legit.

 

This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me. Thanks!

[Spydertrader 10]

  MomentumMike said:

This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me.

 

Your annotations exist accurately, or they do not. Double check any 'math' used for carry over containers (unless gap removal is automated). Review how the black container lines were drawn. It's easy to create error by failing to place a trend line on the exact low or high of the specific Point Three (or Point Two) - especially with multiple day trends. Double check highs / lows for the sepcific bars used with another data source to ensure you don't simply have a data source issue.

 

- Spydertrader

[rs5 10]

Friday 16 April 2010