The Price / Volume Relationship

[zt379 10]

You might wish to expand on this point somewhat. Note the chart snippet I posted and the blue arrows.

 

- Spydertrader

expand on a volatility expansion..and there I was hoping for a gaussian fractal solution.

No mind, perhaps they are connected.

 

I think it's to do with:

1.whether the VE allows an RTL to be accelerated, (a new RTL in other words) as per your Magenta and thus a new Ltl.

a. by allow, I mean do we accelerate the (tape) RTL to a bar with increasing vol?

b. and if to increasing volume does the close of that bar need to be anywhere spcific to the close of the previous bar ?

an IBGS etc..

2. and when or which or if a new Ltl has been FTT'd.

3. and if FTT'd, then we have a new P1 for a new trend and the new trends P2 needs to be outside the last accelerated RTL (magenta) for the guassian B2B (if new trend is up) to be on the same fractal as the last 2R of the previous trend...

 

Just some thoughts, so no "f" typos please if I'm wrong.

I'm really quite sensitive

 

Ps: your charts are so rare these days Spydertrader that I'm getting a quote on ebay later.

I'll put the proceeds into the STC retirees fund, there are quite a few of us now lol

Edited October 14, 2010 by zt379

[vienna 10]

my first chart... hindsight, EOD... be kind, am only on this stuff for a few weeks...:-)

 

Perhaps the channels are incorrect.. for sure the Gaussians are not clear yet

[Spydertrader 10]

I have noted the differences I see at the blue arrows.

 

For now, only discuss the similarities and differences between the Red and Pink Medium weight lines. Act as if the skinny lines do not exist.

 

The first group of VE's did one thing, while the second group did another (based on what the market did after what is shown in the chart snippet.

 

Later, use the YM to 'see' the differences in the skinny line areas.

 

Remember your original issue: What takes place as a result of a VE.

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

expand on a volatility expansion..and there I was hoping for a gaussian fractal solution. No mind, perhaps they are connected.

 

Of course they are connected.

 

I think it's to do with: whether the VE allows an RTL to be accelerated

 

Must certainly it does.

 

And since you know when you are permitted to annotate a Right Trend line, you can then know exactly what the market must do next.

 

and if to increasing volume does the close of that bar need to be anywhere spcific to the close of the previous bar ?

 

Look at the chart snippet in an effort to locate the answer you seek.

 

and if FTT'd, then we have a new P1 for a new trend and the new trends P2 needs to be outside the last accelerated RTL (magenta) for the guassian B2B (if new trend is up) to be on the same fractal as the last 2R of the previous trend...

 

Gee, it's starting to sound like you have more answers than you believe you have.

 

- Spydertrader

[vienna 10]

Perhaps somebody can post a correctly annotated chart of today so I can see what I did wrong?

Thanks.

[Spydertrader 10]

Perhaps somebody can post a correctly annotated chart of today so I can see what I did wrong?

 

You failed to follow directions ...

 

Once you can know with 100% certainty that the down channel has completed, you can then go back, and create annotations which indicate same.

 

Then, you will have learned how to logically, correctly, and completely annotate a chart. Whether or not you realize that you've learned this skill is another matter entirely.

 

Please note. I have not inidicated whether the down container has completed its trend, or if it has not. I'm simply pointing out the fact that you do not yet know the answer.

[vienna 10]

Darn right I don't ...

 

 

you[/b] do not yet know the answer.

[Spydertrader 10]

Darn right I don't ...

 

So figure out at what point you can absolutely know for certain the market completed building a down container, and when that moment arrives create the annotations required of a completed channel.

 

- Spydertrader

[Breakeven 10]

I am working under the belief that I should know the down container is not finished as soon as the first pair of blue arrows occur. So, by EOB blue arrow #2, I should know that the down container is continuing. If this is not the case please head me off so that I can stay on the reservation

 

For now, only discuss the similarities and differences between the Red and Pink Medium weight lines. Act as if the skinny lines do not exist.

 

The first group of VE's did one thing, while the second group did another (based on what the market did after what is shown in the chart snippet.

 

Later, use the YM to 'see' the differences in the skinny line areas.

 

Remember your original issue: What takes place as a result of a VE.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Well, looking at only the two medium containers and focusing on the blue arrows I see two differences.

 

1. The first pair has a bar that VE and closes beyond the original LTL then has an IBGS that closes inside the original LTL.

 

2. The second pair does not have an IBGS and while bar 2 of this pair does close beyond the original LTL it does not close beyond the previous VE LTL.

 

Now, it seems like I am focused on where these bars close and to be honest I do not like that. If I were to rely on just where a bar closes, what happens when some numbnut hits the ask and suddenly the close is one tick from where I would say "Yep, it closed beyond"?

 

The same goes for the VE happening on an IBGS. What happens when by virtue of an arbitrary 5 min bar this IBGS happens to get split into two bars?

 

Please don't think I am trying to be argumentative here. These are just the questions I am asking myself when I look for a "reason" that something happens. I try to think of reasons that would still be valid if I shifted the timestamps of the bars by 1min or whatever. Which tells me where a bar closes in relation to its open or in relation to another bars open/close is not nearly as important as what the bar actually does.

 

Remember your original issue: What takes place as a result of a VE.

 

Well, I know that not all VE's cause or create an accelerated container else the Pink container in this chart would accelerate. So, there must be a difference in these two examples that will be valid for all VE's that cause an accelerated container.(?)

[zt379 10]

I am working under the belief that I should know the down container is not finished as soon as the first pair of blue arrows occur. So, by EOB blue arrow #2, I should know that the down container is continuing. If this is not the case please head me off so that I can stay on the reservation

 

 

 

Well, looking at only the two medium containers and focusing on the blue arrows I see two differences.

 

1. The first pair has a bar that VE and closes beyond the original LTL then has an IBGS that closes inside the original LTL.

 

2. The second pair does not have an IBGS and while bar 2 of this pair does close beyond the original LTL it does not close beyond the previous VE LTL.

 

Now, it seems like I am focused on where these bars close and to be honest I do not like that. If I were to rely on just where a bar closes, what happens when some numbnut hits the ask and suddenly the close is one tick from where I would say "Yep, it closed beyond"?

 

The same goes for the VE happening on an IBGS. What happens when by virtue of an arbitrary 5 min bar this IBGS happens to get split into two bars?

 

Please don't think I am trying to be argumentative here. These are just the questions I am asking myself when I look for a "reason" that something happens. I try to think of reasons that would still be valid if I shifted the timestamps of the bars by 1min or whatever. Which tells me where a bar closes in relation to its open or in relation to another bars open/close is not nearly as important as what the bar actually does.

 

 

 

Well, I know that not all VE's cause or create an accelerated container else the Pink container in this chart would accelerate. So, there must be a difference in these two examples that will be valid for all VE's that cause an accelerated container.(?)

 

Perhaps, to throw it into the mix for suggestion, as I'm not sure:

 

First 2 blue arrows:

No accel of tape rtl to bar with increasing vol (2nd blue arrow) because bar closes higher than previous close or because its an IBGS.

No FTT. (of tape ltl)

So annotate new (magenta) P2 (on BO of tape rtl.)

WMCN = completion of vol sequence from Magenta P1,

R2R2B2R.

 

 

Second 2 Blue arrows:

No accel of tape rtl to bar with decreasing vol.(4th blue arrow)

Yes FTT. (of tape ltl)

Magenta R2R2B2R vol sequence complete

= new P1 confirmed with decreasing black vol to tape rtl,

and increasing black vol on BO of tape rtl

= thin gaussian until BO of Magenta RTL.

 

??

Edited October 15, 2010 by zt379

[Spydertrader 10]

I am working under the belief that I should know the down container is not finished as soon as the first pair of blue arrows occur. So, by EOB blue arrow #2, I should know that the down container is continuing. If this is not the case please head me off so that I can stay on the reservation .

 

You are not wrong.

 

Well, looking at only the two medium containers and focusing on the blue arrows I see two differences.

 

1. The first pair has a bar that VE and closes beyond the original LTL

 

2. bar 2 of this pair does not close beyond the previous VE LTL.

 

Now, it seems like I am focused on where these bars close

 

You are foucsed on two things in this context:

 

1. Volume

 

2. Where Price closes relative to a trend line.

 

Your concerns with respect to where Price closes relative to the Bid / Ask have resulted from your failure to 'think through' the possibilities of Price Close relative to a trend line.

 

Once you work through these possibilities, you'll see what concerns you isn't logical, nor rational.

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

Well, I know that not all VE's cause or create an accelerated container else the Pink container in this chart would accelerate. So, there must be a difference in these two examples that will be valid for all VE's that cause an accelerated container.(?)

 

Yes. There definitiely must be.

 

- Spydertrader

[Breakeven 10]

You are foucsed on two things in this context:

 

1. Volume

 

2. Where Price closes relative to a trend line.

 

Your concerns with respect to where Price closes relative to the Bid / Ask have resulted from your failure to 'think through' the possibilities of Price Close relative to a trend line.

 

Once you work through these possibilities, you'll see what concerns you isn't logical, nor rational.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thanks very much for the guidance

 

Just thinking out loud concerning the possibilities of close vs. trend line I see three cases for the actual close and four cases for the bid/ask.

 

For the close there would be 1. Inside, 2. On the line, 3. Outside.

 

For the bid/ask there would be (for a downchannel VE) 1. bid/ask both inside 2. bid on the line, ask inside 3. bid outside, ask on the line 4. bid/ask both outside.

 

And I completely forgot what I was leading up to with this...:rofl:

 

Suffice it to say, if my concerns are not rational I will accept that and move on

 

Thank you for this discussion! With the known good cases in your chart snipit along with some comparison to my past charts over the next couple of days I hope to finally put this problem to bed.

[Spydertrader 10]

Suffice it to say, if my concerns are not rational I will accept that and move on

 

Think for a moment. If you have concerns over "some yahoo painting the tape" and causing Price to close on the ask vs the bid wouldn't you have the exact same concern for the VE creation in the first place? (e.g. not quite touching the LTL, on the LTL and through the LTL)

 

- Spydertrader

[Breakeven 10]

Think for a moment. If you have concerns over "some yahoo painting the tape" and causing Price to close on the ask vs the bid wouldn't you have the exact same concern for the VE creation in the first place? (e.g. not quite touching the LTL, on the LTL and through the LTL)

 

- Spydertrader

 

 

LOL, from your tone I am not certain I should admit that I have had that concern. And I have actually looked at the "degree" that a container is VE'd in an attempt to find differences.

 

But I think I understand what you are saying: It is what it is.

[wind_ 11]

Thanks for posting your chart snippet, Spyder. It's a very rare find nowadays

 

When I compared your chart annotations with mine, I saw that your tape annotation is much much more thorough than mine. Perhaps, doing so will show me what I fail to see. I need to get back to basics, and create very thorough chart annotations.

 

The process 'works' when a trader has learned to 'see' the order of events develop on three fractals (one above, and one below, the trading fractal)

 

Think for a moment. If you have concerns over "some yahoo painting the tape" and causing Price to close on the ask vs the bid wouldn't you have the exact same concern for the VE creation in the first place? (e.g. not quite touching the LTL, on the LTL and through the LTL)

 

Thanks for the hint. After I think about it, for the tape level to complete, it has to show FTT. And in the chart snippet, I see that the difference between the first pair and second pair of blue arrows is that the first pair shows VE on tape level, and second pair shows tape FTT (no tape VE).

 

I'm going to test this hypothesis by reviewing some charts. Too bad my previous annotations were not thorough, I'll have to redraw everything.. darn

 

I wonder what else have I missed by not annotating thoroughly

[savarez 10]

EVERY container ends on an FTT. We know that if a VE has occurred then we have NOT had an FTT, so the container CANNOT be finished. Closing inside, on or outside the LTL at the time of the VE is irrelevant.

[Zan-shin 10]

Once the market can no longer be constructing one thing, it must be constucting another thing.

- Spydertrader

Undoubtedly true, but the problem lies in knowing what defines the point at which one knows this, what it is NOT constructing, and what the "other thing" actually is, and on what fractal. The general principles given at the beginning of this thread fail to make this clear.

[zt379 10]

Undoubtedly true, but the problem lies in knowing what defines the point at which one knows this, what it is NOT constructing, and what the "other thing" actually is, and on what fractal. The general principles given at the beginning of this thread fail to make this clear.

 

I concur here and it is at the heart of the matter for me too.

The reason I responded to the Spydertrader snippet was to establish how to know what fractal we are on.

IE: if the medium B2B relates to the Olive trend lines, then as I (and I assume savarez) contend that the medium 2R needs to be outside the Olive RTL, so would be what we are expecting.

This would I think relate to your reference to the "general principles".

 

We may have established that an accelerated RTL, because of aVE, would "reposition" the B2B RTL:

"containers" as gucci has referred.

I was, and remain unsure how, if it was the case, that that was done on the snippet, because of where or how the P2 was positioned.

If we recall, the P2 position would be important as it establishes when and if we have a VE.

In other words, if the Olive LTL did NOT VE, then we did NOT have the medium 2R yet.

 

So, as you say:

but the problem lies in knowing what defines the point at which one knows this, what it is NOT constructing, and what the "other thing" actually is, and on what fractal.

I would have been waiting for the medium 2R and others had viewed that the medium B2B2R2B had completed, hence the Blue P2.

 

Going forward from Blue P2 may still have kept us on "the right side" but only up to a point, at which, we realized we were not on the right side of what we thought we were.

 

This, it may be argued is still "ok" and part of the process of "what we now know we don't have" and can be largely forgiving, depending on the size of the containers etc..

 

But the issue, for me, remains.

Being I want to "know" what fractal I am trading rather than become aware that the fractal I thought I was trading isn't and that knowing it isn't doesn't tell me which fractal it is.

Edited October 15, 2010 by zt379

[zt379 10]

Additionally:

"the beef is on a silver plate" was referring to patraders explanation on gucci's questions.

It is not without delight to have read that phrase, as I'm sure I'm not alone in saying., and sincere thanks to gucci for it.

 

I would, however, be humbly grateful for any feed back from patrader, or anyone as an ongoing process of civil discussion, if you could explain if your "explanation" had anything to do with the "repositioning" of the B2B "container" and how that occurred if it was the case ?

 

kind regards to all...

Edited October 15, 2010 by zt379

[Spydertrader 10]

Undoubtedly true, but the problem lies in knowing what defines the point at which one knows this, what it is NOT constructing, and what the "other thing" actually is, and on what fractal. The general principles given at the beginning of this thread fail to make this clear.

 

Once again, If you'll simply wait until the market has completed the construction of its down container, then you'll absolutely know how the market moved through the order of events on all fractals.

 

Now, how can you know with 100% certainty that the market would have completed its down container today (10-15-2010)? What event would tell you for certain such a thing had developed?

 

At such a point in time, you'll have everything required to annotate a chart correctly in hindsight, which as a result, will provide you what you need to know whether (or not) you have remained on the same fractal each step of the way.

 

- Spydertrader

[Zan-shin 10]

Now, how can you know with 100% certainty that the market would have completed its down container today (10-15-2010)? What event would tell you for certain such a thing had developed?

- Spydertrader

I am assuming that you are referring to to the red container in the attached chart. Let's assume that I saw the FTT at 10:30 in real time. When would I know for certain that I wasn't going to have to adjust the red RTL to make the same container shallower? 10:55 with increasing black volume? How do I know that b2b2r2b sequence is on the same fractal as the red container?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Zan-shin

[Spydertrader 10]

My understanding is that a container is defined by its RTL and LTL and the volume sequence, but I do not know if/when the RTL should be accelerated or decelerated, and I do not know how to recognise volume sequences on the different fractals because it has never been explained.

 

I did not ask how a container is defined. I did not ask how to build a container. I did not ask how you could know to remain on the same fractal. I did not ask how you could know an FTT developed on a specific bar. I only asked how one can know that it would be impossible for the market to be continuing to build a down container.

 

At some point in time it is impossible for a down container to be continuing to be built. Whether or not you know the exact bar where the down container stopped and an up container began has nothing to do with the question I asked.

 

Think.

 

We are told earlier in the thread that the volume pane tells us what we have (tape, traverse, channel etc) but I don't see any explanation of that either.

 

I've been attempting to show you how to teach yourself these things beginning with very simple logic. Unfortunately, I have not been successful in this endeavor. Again we are not talking about Volume sequences, or order of events right now. I only want you to think critically for a moment and understand the question being asked.

 

"When do you know with 100% certainty that the market has indicated building a down container is impossible?"

 

Do not overcomplicate this question.

 

Perhaps you could put us all out of our misery by explaining to us how YOU know with 100% certainty that the down container completed today. Telling us that the "market tells you" is futile.

 

Let's be clear on something. I did not ask, "How could you know the market already completed the down container?" I asked, "How you could know with 100% certainty the market completed its down container today?"

 

In a two demensional environment, it is quite common for people to 'read into' things an unintended meaning.

 

So let's try one more time with the question:

 

"How can you (or anybody following along with this discussion) know with 100% certainty that the down container, which began on 10-13-2010 (at 14:15 Eastern Time), must have ended at some point in time today (10-15-2010)?"

 

- Spydertrader

[zt379 10]

deleted..wrong answer...

Edited October 15, 2010 by zt379
deleted..wrong answer...

[Zan-shin 10]

So let's try one more time with the question:

 

"How can you (or anybody following along with this discussion) know with 100% certainty that the down container, which began on 10-13-2010 (at 14:15 Eastern Time), must have ended at some point in time today (10-15-2010)?"

 

- Spydertrader

We can only know that with 100% certainty when price exceeds the high of 14:15 on 10-13-2010.