The Price / Volume Relationship

[gucci 10]

Something to think about. Something to clear up about the pace.

Edited October 25, 2010 by gucci
Whatever

[Breakeven 10]

 

Your Pink (first one) down Traverse has a Point One in the incorrect location. If the medium pink trend lines represent acceleration, you do not have a new Point One.

 

 

If I could ask some clarification on what you are saying here regarding This Chart did you mean:

 

1. The Pink (first one) Traverse can not exist in that location the way I have the chart annotated?

 

or

 

2. The Pink (first one) Traverse can not exist in that location on a properly annotated chart?

 

Sorry if I am being dense here.

 

TIA

[Spydertrader 10]

If I could ask some clarification on what you are saying here regarding This Chart

 

If you look at my older charts, you'll often see numerous examples of where I added a 'new' Point One of a container - specifically during periods of Pace Acceleration. This was more a function of the annotation tool I used (for placing 1, 2, 3 on a chart), rather than, a function of how markets operate.

 

To be clear, a Point One always begins a container.

 

Rather than think in terms of a 'new' Point One (or two different colors for the same Line Weight thickness), you should consider the entire move (to Point Two of the Channel) as one Traverse which required an acceleration of its RTL (Right Trend Line). After all. VE's do not represent the only circumstance which results in an acceleration of the RTL.

 

In other words, a Point One isn't going to move,

 

Please note: We have only discussed a Point One.

 

Edit: To some, the above might appear as nothing more than semantics. However, down the road, when you start to compare the relative vs. absolute nature of things, you'll not send yourself down the incorrect path.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[nkhoi 10]

Just wondering if any devout followers of this method have successfully applied it to markets in real time with real money.

we were asked this question time after time, The answer way back when the method just got posted was 'may be' , 'I dont know', 'I hope so'. but now there are many 'yes' and if thing goes the way its there will be more yes still.

 

Simply stated, I am incredibly skeptical that anyone can apply this with any type of long term success.

Jack have been around more years than all your fingers and toes combine, if that is not long term, I dont know know what to tell you.

[Breakeven 10]

 

Rather than think in terms of a 'new' Point One (or two different colors for the same Line Weight thickness), you should consider the entire move (to Point Two of the Channel) as one Traverse which required an acceleration of its RTL (Right Trend Line). After all. VE's do not represent the only circumstance which results in an acceleration of the RTL.

 

In other words, a Point One isn't going to move,

 

 

Thanks very much

 

Is the attached an accurate representation of this concept?

 

Or have I taken it a step too far and Pt1(the real one)>Pt3 must always connect geometrically?

 

Thanks again!

[moosie 10]

You should consider the effect changing Pace has on your ability to 'see' things clearly, and start again.

All I notice is that the non-dom 'subtapes' (blue lines) typically start with vol well below extreme pace, even after the transition to extreme vol in the 14:50 dom bar.

 

You should also consider annotating three fractals in an effort to see how the nesting process works. Sometimes proper nesting of fractals can make things a bit easier to see.

 

Ok. Attached w/ three levels of gaussians. From this perspective, it is clear that the 10am->11am movement is just a tape from point 2 to 3 of the traverse.

 

From this (more volume-oriented) point of view, how do I know that the b2bs after sequence completion (14:50) but before the pt2 (10:00)? Is that where the VE's come in?

 

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

[Spydertrader 10]

Is the attached an accurate representation of this concept?

 

Your question assumes too many things which may or may not represent a true indication of the market, and which may or may not indicate a specific context, rather than, an overall concept applicable to any context.

 

As such, answering your question assures transference of untended information.

 

Therefore, rather than answer your question, I'll reword my previous post.

 

[begin rewrite of previous post]

 

Point One's (of a specific container) do not move (within that specific container).

 

[End rewrite of previous post]

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader 10]

All I notice is that the non-dom 'subtapes' (blue lines) typically start with vol well below extreme pace, even after the transition to extreme vol in the 14:50 dom bar.

 

A significant amount of information exists with the creation of each and every Volume Bar. Similarly, the market provides far more information, with respect to Pace Changes, than just how 'non-dom sub tapes' present themselves.

 

 

Ok. Attached w/ three levels of gaussians. From this perspective, it is clear that the 10am->11am movement is just a tape from point 2 to 3 of the traverse.

 

How can you know if your statement resulted from accurate (or incorrect) information?

 

 

From this (more volume-oriented) point of view, how do I know that the b2bs after sequence completion (14:50) but before the pt2 (10:00)? Is that where the VE's come in?

 

Context, always has been, and always will be, king. You cannot make decisions in a vacuum. VE's must always be handled in a consistant fashion. Fanning must always be handled in a consistant fashion. Pace changes must always be handled in a consistant fashion. Order of events must always be handled in a consistant fashion. Dominance and Non-dominance must always be handled in a consistant fashion.

 

The current Traverse under discussion exists within a known entity called a channel. Annotate all components of the channel in a consistant fashion and you'll understand the answers you seek existed right in front of you all along.

 

- Spydertrader

[Breakeven 10]

Digging around looking at Pace, I found some similarities in a couple of areas on my beloved 10/13-10/15 chart.

 

The second highlighted area is a Traverse. I know the first area can not be a Traverse, but it is interesting anyway.

 

Or, I am just seeing things :crap:

[gucci 10]

Digging around looking at Pace, I found some similarities in a couple of areas on my beloved 10/13-10/15 chart.

 

The second highlighted area is a Traverse. I know the first area can not be a Traverse, but it is interesting anyway.

 

Or, I am just seeing things :crap:

 

 

I o not know what you are seeing. But you still do not want to annotate all of the tapes in the last traverse to see the things the way the market presented them to you. This is a hazardous journey.

[patrader 10]

Working on annotation skills and nesting.Comments welcome

[Breakeven 10]

 

Some things to keep in mind:

 

1. Your Pink (first one) down Traverse has a Point One in the incorrect location. If the medium pink trend lines represent acceleration, you do not have a new Point One. The first tape, the first traverse and the channel itself all have the same Point One (Red Number One on your chart) - always and without exception.

 

2. Note the Pace changes. Pace influences all frctals - not just medium and thick.

 

 

My latest annotations for 10/13-10/15 attached. The only modifications from the last chart occur in the area between Pt 1 > Pt 2 of the first Traverse.

 

I know there is a "disconnect" in the gaussians for Tape 1 but I am not sure how else to depict my intentions in this area.

 

Thank you for any comments you may have!

[cnms2 10]

Working on annotation skills and nesting.Comments welcome

Quick comments:

I believe a few useful laterals could be drawn (e.g. 1125 end of bar).

In my view, some gaussians you've drawn don't accurately reflect the volume trends.

[moosie 10]

My latest annotations for 10/13-10/15 attached. The only modifications from the last chart occur in the area between Pt 1 > Pt 2 of the first Traverse.

 

I know there is a "disconnect" in the gaussians for Tape 1 but I am not sure how else to depict my intentions in this area.

 

Thank you for any comments you may have!

 

 

Can you talk about accelerating your pink traverse to a new pt3 @ 10/14 14:00? It seems necessary on my chart too, but I can't figure out what gives us the 'heads up' that a new traverse pt3 is on the table.

[vienna 10]

Am trying to get my mind correctly around the concepts of the gaussians and fractals...if I dont build an accurate model in my head, annotating is just guesswork... so I re-read the thread.

I ran into an older post by tiki which starts with bbt's. then tapes, then traverses, then channels.

I had been confused before since I thought we are annotating in 3 fractals, not 4 (i thought the smallest level was the tape, not the bbt).

 

So- just to get this clear in my head: we are talking about 4 fractals, and the sequences have to complete in each-correct?

 

Sorry if this question sounds newbie.

[Tams 20]

Am trying to get my mind correctly around the concepts of the gaussians and fractals...if I dont build an accurate model in my head, annotating is just guesswork... so I re-read the thread.

I ran into an older post by tiki which starts with bbt's. then tapes, then traverses, then channels.

I had been confused before since I thought we are annotating in 3 fractals, not 4 (i thought the smallest level was the tape, not the bbt).

 

So- just to get this clear in my head: we are talking about 4 fractals, and the sequences have to complete in each-correct?

 

Sorry if this question sounds newbie.

 

what is your pleasure?

[Spydertrader 10]

So- just to get this clear in my head: we are talking about 4 fractals, and the sequences have to complete in each-correct.

.

 

We want to always annotate three fractal levels. Sometimes, we have the ability to see more than three fractal levels. Sometimes it is difficult just to see three levels.

 

The market provides clues as to when one can expect difficulty seeing three levels, as well as, times when we can expect to see more than three levels.

 

- Spydertrader

[vienna 10]

My confusion stems from the fact that you wrote in the beginning "Attached, please find ten scenarios which cover the number of two bar (or more) formations (the smallest tape) possible as formed by the market."

 

Then I discovered that what is created by these scenarios could actually be a "bbt", a building block of a tape, and not a tape- how do I know which it is?

 

 

.

 

We want to always annotate three fractal levels. Sometimes, we have the ability to see more than three fractal levels. Sometimes it is difficult just to see three levels.

 

The market provides clues as to when one can expect difficulty seeing three levels, as well as, times when we can expect to see more than three levels.

 

- Spydertrader

[gucci 10]

My confusion stems from the fact that you wrote in the beginning "Attached, please find ten scenarios which cover the number of two bar (or more) formations (the smallest tape) possible as formed by the market."

 

Then I discovered that what is created by these scenarios could actually be a "bbt", a building block of a tape, and not a tape- how do I know which it is?

 

 

Think in terms of tapes. Start with what is observable. To observe a traverse you need at least two tapes break each other, whereas the volume tells you whether those breaks are noteworthy or not.

[cnms2 10]

Am trying to get my mind correctly around the concepts of the gaussians and fractals...if I dont build an accurate model in my head, annotating is just guesswork... so I re-read the thread.

I ran into an older post by tiki which starts with bbt's. then tapes, then traverses, then channels.

I had been confused before since I thought we are annotating in 3 fractals, not 4 (i thought the smallest level was the tape, not the bbt).

 

So- just to get this clear in my head: we are talking about 4 fractals, and the sequences have to complete in each-correct?

 

Sorry if this question sounds newbie.

It's better to attach illustrative chart snippets to your questions. You know how they say "a picture is ..."

 

Slower paces act as a magnifier, so you can see finer fractals. Faster paces hide finer fractals. Step back and look at the broader picture!

[203NG 10]

.

 

We want to always annotate three fractal levels.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Hello Spyder,

 

I have attached one of your charts from early last year.

 

I know that you have said we should be cautious about using older charts because emphasis/conventions were different then, so my first question is, Is this chart annotated according to the conventions that you are seeking to transfer in this thread?

 

If the answer to this question is "yes", then my question concerns the Gaussians and fractals annotated that some of us find difficult to understand?

 

The chart clearly shows (at certain times, but not always) thin, medium and thick Gaussians. However, at times we do not have 3 levels of Gaussians. For example, at 12:40 an increasing red (thick) Gaussian starts and simultaneously we have a medium (r2r2b2r). The two end at 13:25. There is no annotated thin Gaussian whatsoever for this period, and I cannot see how it would be possible to annotate a thin level sequence over this period. (It is almost as if, as Gucci said, the market "jumped fractals!")

 

After that we have a b2b where only thick level Gaussians are annotated (at least in the beginning, no medium and no thin, and again I don't see how they would be possible in the context.) Thats why I find if confusing when you say that we always want to annotate 3 fractal levels .... or am I wrongly equating fractal levels with Gaussians lines of different thickness

 

In a nutshell, does always annotating three fractal levels imply always and everywhere having 3 (thin, medium and thick) sets of Gaussians. I think this is a misconception that I have had for a long time, and which the recent productive discussion has begun to dispel, but I would like confirmation. Your patience and support is much appreciated.

[vienna 10]

Ok...perhaps i am focusing on something that is not important. I tried to break this down and start with the smallest piece (equivalent to the letter in the alphabet), only to discover that there seems to be an even smaller piece.Since this is partly like learning a language, I felt that the definitions had to be unambiguous....but it seems that others here do not have that issue, so it must be some misunderstanding on my part...

[vienna 10]

It's better to attach illustrative chart snippets to your questions. You know how they say "a picture is ..."

 

 

Here you go... what is called a tape in the image I took to be a traverse...

[Spydertrader 10]

Here you go... what is called a tape in the image I took to be a traverse...

 

Listen. You need to fight the urge to overcomplicate things. In the beginning stages of attempting to learn this material, everyone (including myself) tries to 'invent' different ways they 'feel' might best suite their needs, but the reality is, far different than one expects. You currently find yourself 'hung up' on vocabulary. Your prior educational experience dictates you need to understand vocabulary in order to understand a concept. This is true only in cases where vocabulary is the differentiating factor.

 

In this specific case the words "tape, traverse, channel, bbt, sub bbt sub-sub bbt (or however many fractals down the rabbit hole one wishes to travel)" have zero relevance to understanding. One could just as easily use "thin, medium, thick, dotted, dashed, dot-dashed" or even "pig, goat, cow, spider, insect, bateria" to describe the exact same events. You understand the "pig, goat, cow" analogy because you know the absolute definition of each organism. You therefore assume, using the same approach, all you need is to understand the absolute definition of "tape, traverse, channel or bbt," What the reality is you have yet to understand that the market often speaks in a language which (while sometimes providing absolutes) most frequently transfers information in a relative sense.

 

In other words, you should focus on when you have a completed container compared to when the market continues to build the same container. In such a fashion, you need not know what to call the container itself, but by applying the fractal nature of all markets, you can know when one container has ended, and another has begun.

 

- Spydertrader

Edited October 27, 2010 by Spydertrader

[nkhoi 10]

Here you go... what is called a tape in the image I took to be a traverse...

what 'the man' said above also I look at picture and I notice each piece of three big pieces has 3 smaller pieces inside I think that is what the picture trying to convey.