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

  moosie said:
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.

 

Well, first of all, I think you can safely ignore that last chart I posted. I was trying to illustrate something that just did not come out right. The "idea" behind that chart was flawed as well.

 

But I would be happy to give a rundown of This Chart which I believe to be the most accurate of my charts. But note that the exact ending points for some of the gaussians are probably a bit rough, especially on the morning of the 14th.

 

The idea behind the chart I just linked hinges on WWT (what wasn't that) and the FB-Lateral around mid-day on the 14th. I believe that lateral to be equal (the same fractal) to the thin Orange down container and worked backwards from there. Now, I could not decide if the morning of the 14th was Pt3 of a Tape or a Traverse, but I did know that an Up Tape and Down Tape followed my Lateral. So, all I have to do is decide what fractal the Orange thin line is and that will tell me what came before.

 

If that Orange container is a Tape, then the Lateral is a Tape and the Traverse Acc's there...and we get two orphan Tapes trailing after. So my thinking is that this can't be correct.

 

If that Orange container is a piece of a Tape (namely 2R) then the Lateral is also a piece (that follows what I think is Pace Acc) and I can Acc the Tape. Now I have one Down Tape (the Purple lines) followed by an Up Tape>Down Tape, this seems to work. Which means the afternoon of the 13th and the morning of the 14th are pieces of a Tape.

 

I know this probably seems an overly convoluted way to try to answer your question, but what I think would not have made sense without my perspective.

 

  moosie said:
Can you talk about accelerating your pink traverse to a new pt3 @ 10/14 14:00?

 

Short answer for what I think:

 

There is not a new Pt3 for the Traverse at 14:00. It is the Pt3 for the Traverse.

 

 

Disclaimer: Please assume everything I say is incorrect, as it may very well be. It is very possible that I jumped fractals forwards and backwards, just ending where it seemed to work by chance.

 

I hope this helps more than it hurts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
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.

 

I meant three tapes of course. I apologize for any confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot, that helps!

 

  Spydertrader said:
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
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.

 

I am sure that must be true, but I don't 'know' it yet. At my present level of annotation ability it is hard to see two periods that look the same in the price pane, have different volume arrangements, and have different outcomes.

 

 

  Spydertrader said:

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

 

It is composed of a complete volume sequence and it's container breaks the previous container. Also, that part is now coming out the same each time I erase and start over with a refinement to my annotation technique. I am convinced that its there.

 

 

  Spydertrader said:

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.

 

I hear that. I do not yet understand non-ve fanning/acceleration or the impact of pace changes.

 

 

  Spydertrader said:

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.

r

 

Are you implying that consistency in annotation requires thorough differentiation? Makes sense to me.

 

I am currently attempting to why the black thick thing and the red thick thing are the same fractal. If I were to consistently apply the annotation method used up to 15:05, it would be a medium thing. The black thing does start on extreme volume; is that sufficient (in this particular context) to know that this container is on the thick fractal?

 

Thanks again for your time and commentary.

1014gaussjump.thumb.png.5a56be6956243bb0c3d1415844d04852.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  moosie said:
I am currently attempting to why the black thick thing and the red thick thing are the same fractal. If I were to consistently apply the annotation method used up to 15:05, it would be a medium thing. The black thing does start on extreme volume; is that sufficient (in this particular context) to know that this container is on the thick fractal?

 

You have one more container to annotate in order to create a thick fractal (channel). You'll then have three medium weight containers to compare and contrast. If you complete the annotation process for a channel (thick container), you should see two very similar traverses and one different traverse. Determining why the two are similar vs why the one is different should then become easier for you.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
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.

 

  gucci said:
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.

 

  gucci said:
I meant three tapes of course. I apologize for any confusion.

 

Not to confuse but thought it was worth mentioning, it's been said the smallest possible tape is 5 bars - though I can't remember seeing one personally. Food for thought on tape breaks and volume.

 

Probably should have said container instead of tape, but you get the idea. Sheep, goat, poodle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  KalixMOR said:
I have tryed a strategy in NT based on fast changes in volume coupled with price action but longterm backtesting yielded always no profit.

 

Without the ability to accurately reflect market sentiment in a binary fashion, one cannot expect to locate a positive result from neither back testing nor walk forward analysis.

 

In addition, how fast (a gradient measurement) cannot override the market signals of 'change' or 'continue.' (binary measurement).

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
You have one more container to annotate in order to create a thick fractal (channel). You'll then have three medium weight containers to compare and contrast. If you complete the annotation process for a channel (thick container), you should see two very similar traverses and one different traverse. Determining why the two are similar vs why the one is different should then become easier for you.

 

- Spydertrader

 

I think it must come down to starting volume, although the following table suggests vol@pt 2 as a possibility

 

Traverse #: vol @ pt1, pt2, pt3

1: medium, fast, medium

2: extreme, extreme, fast

3: extreme, extreme, extreme

 

 

The thick sequence is complete at the end of the third traverse, which is a VE of the thick container. There follows two more medium containers (annotated that way based on starting volume) before price escapes the thick container. Does that make any sense, or am I still mucking things up?

 

Thanks again; your commentary is very helpful.

1013drill-thick.thumb.png.604831d7d2341d9574fc16aa43822b9e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  moosie said:
Does that make any sense, or am I still mucking things up?

 

Everything ends at 10:30. A whole new set of things begins at 10:30. Don't concern yourself with what you believe happens after 10:30, but remain focused on what happens between 2:15 and 10:30.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  moosie said:
I think it must come down to starting volume, although the following table suggests vol@pt 2 as a possibility

 

Traverse #: vol @ pt1, pt2, pt3

1: medium, fast, medium

2: extreme, extreme, fast

3: extreme, extreme, extreme

 

 

This might provide some help. Note how important THOROUGH annotations can get sometimes :). And Spyder has repeated that same thing again and again.:)

5aa71040a680f_TraverseES10_15_2010.jpg.70b69864bfcf52ae083ca40e8e8b4ed6.jpg

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
This might provide some help. Note how important THOROUGH annotations can get sometimes :). And Spyder has repeated that same thing again and again.:)

 

Your arrows clockwise:

 

ibgs/ftt, bo of orange container on higher vol, ob, i have no idea

 

Why the orange container? Price doesn't ve the pink container (same as my med red) until after the pt 3 of the orange. What about the ob makes it say, "I am the pt 3 you are looking for."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  moosie said:
Your arrows clockwise:

 

ibgs/ftt, bo of orange container on higher vol, ob, i have no idea

 

Why the orange container? Price doesn't ve the pink container (same as my med red) until after the pt 3 of the orange. What about the ob makes it say, "I am the pt 3 you are looking for."?

 

 

 

Look at where 2B is, and what the price does at 2B.

 

As far as the orange container is concerned, try to draw the original pink rtl through

the points 1 and 3. I hope you'll succeed.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gucci

If I may ask, to see if I'm getting on the same page.

Would you agree with the remainder of the 15th from 10.30 onwards?

(the Blue/Magenta and Blue).

 

Many thx

5aa71040bcf76_1.ES12-10(5Min)15_10_2010.thumb.jpg.8d2d322703a83a0b5d945816de190bc7.jpg

Edited by zt379
missed of end of chart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  zt379 said:
gucci

If I may ask, to see if I'm getting on the same page.

Would you agree with the remainder of the 15th from 10.30 onwards?

(the Blue/Magenta and Blue).

 

Many thx

 

I've coloured the Traverse containers Magenta/Blue to be relative to each other.

This is for the purpose of creating a "thing".

A magenta thing and blue thing.

 

We know we have a Channel P1 at 10:30,

there for the Channel P2 (which would normally be at the end of the Blue container)

needs to be outside the previous down Channel RTL.

 

I've lost the carry over annotations so can't recall if the previous down Channel LTL VE'd

and if so then where that previous down Channel RTL is.

 

Regardless, if the end of the blue from 10:30 gets us to a Channel P2 that is

outside previous down channel RTL then fine.

If it does not then fine, because we then know the blue from 10:30 and magenta from 11:40 and last Blue from 14:05 are actually all faster things building the Blue.

Which would get us to Channel P2.

 

Hope that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  zt379 said:
I've coloured the Traverse containers Magenta/Blue to be relative to each other.

This is for the purpose of creating a "thing".

A magenta thing and blue thing.

 

We know we have a Channel P1 at 10:30,

there for the Channel P2 (which would normally be at the end of the Blue container)

needs to be outside the previous down Channel RTL.

 

I've lost the carry over annotations so can't recall if the previous down Channel LTL VE'd

and if so then where that previous down Channel RTL is.

 

Regardless, if the end of the blue from 10:30 gets us to a Channel P2 that is

outside previous down channel RTL then fine.

If it does not then fine, because we then know the blue from 10:30 and magenta from 11:40 and last Blue from 14:05 are actually all faster things building the Blue.

Which would get us to Channel P2.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Isn't it nice?:) But you should annotate your ltl's as well because they are very important too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  gucci said:
Look at where 2B is, and what the price does at 2B.

 

As far as the orange container is concerned, try to draw the original pink rtl through

the points 1 and 3. I hope you'll succeed.:)

 

Sorry, I must be missing your meaning. Our gaussians are different, as I put the 2b on the first ob of the container. Why would the 2nd ob be the (properly annotated) 2b?

 

Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  moosie said:
Sorry, I must be missing your meaning. Our gaussians are different, as I put the 2b on the first ob of the container. Why would the 2nd ob be the (properly annotated) 2b?

 

Thanks for your help.

 

moosie

This is my take if it helps..

(I stand corrected by those that know better)...

hth

5aa71040e4905_OutsideBar_15_10.2010_ES12-10(5Min)15_10_2010.thumb.jpg.609b380c5ac2e96abe27ae2599c01447.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Spydertrader said:
Everything ends at 10:30. A whole new set of things begins at 10:30. Don't concern yourself with what you believe happens after 10:30, but remain focused on what happens between 2:15 and 10:30.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you for the hint. When the smallest containers are made more carefully (widen for closes within the container, starting with the 9:15 bar), the gaussians are much clearer.

 

If the attached annotations are more correct, I still don't understand why the thick container is over and done with at the end of the third medium container. Is it that the ve's of the thick thing caused by the third medium container are at a higher volume than pt 2(thick)? Maybe reannotating the first medium with newfound care will show enough examples at the thin level for differentiation.

1014-wideners.thumb.png.a191b480f0b38fb95bb33459e94695b6.png

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.