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.
Spydertrader
-
Content Count
389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Spydertrader
-
You've already annotated the flaws on the chart attached to your previous post. - Spydertrader
-
If anyone has experienced difficulty with the above link, it should take you to post #110. - Spydertrader
-
You should arrive at the answer you seek by applying the answers in this post onto your annotated chart snippet. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
Drawing tapes to translating bars should rarely cause anyone difficulty. After all, connecting higher lows and higher highs (or lower highs and lower lows) represents the easiest of all tapes to draw. However, the majority of our trading day contains bars which do not show translation. We've already discussed some of these examples (Stitch & Lateral Formations), but what about the other internals? Perhaps, a bit of differentiation with respect to Pennants can provide some clarity. The quickest bit of differentiation results from what type of Pennant the market has created. Flat Top Pennant (FTP) Flat Bottom Pennant (FBP) Symmetrical Pennant (Sym) (Examples Attached) What else might differentiate these three - from each other and from the rest of the market? Grab a clean copy of Friday's 5 minute ES chart, and begin to look for subtle differences - again, between the three examples and between all three examples and the rest of the market day. I'll start you off with one ... Two of the three Pennants already have a 'built in' way to draw a trend line. The third example requires another bar in order to determine which trend line presents a correct view of the market. Group the various differences together in order to form a consistant view (based on context), and apply that view onto all congruent contexts. Take some time to focus on what develops after the market creates these pennants. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
One cannot 'gather together' that which does not exist. While certainly, additional trading fractals (beyond skinny, medium and thick) do exist, they reside not 'in between' skinny and medium, but rather, below (or faster than) a skinny line. As a result, we rarely see them. However, when we do see these faster (than skinny line) fractals, they operate in the exact same fashion as all other fractals (skinny, medium and thick) which we see each and every day. While the remainder of your question provides logical points which one can observe as correct or incorrect - simply by viewing a thoroughly annotated chart, the question leaves out one very important point. What role (if any) does 'context' play in the application of your conclusion? One can, quite easily, find themselves far 'off track' simply by applying the correct rule to the in-correct context. For this very reason, I have recommended everyone learn to differentiate the 'subtle differences' which develop time after time. To that end, I plan to post another differentiation drill later this weekend. While you may feel that I have failed to answer your question sufficiently, if you read my response closely, you should see that I have provided you valuable direction. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
That's some list you have there. However, I encourage everyone to keep this process as simple as possible. For example, those who focus making decisions and taking action at the end of a bar, have no need for Pro-Rata Volume (a calculation which anticipates future, at end of bar, Volume as a function Current Volume [now]). One observes PRV while learning to transition from 'taking action' at end of bar to taking action intra-bar. Some other things (on your list) give the appearance of redundancy. In other words, no need to focus on a laundry list of items. - Spydertrader
-
While noting the various Pace changes might help someone to see what I have described in this thread, plenty of other, more critical, information exists, other than, observing Pace transitioning across pink, red, blue and green lines. - Spydertrader
-
Fractal One: Thin Lines - "Short Term Trend" (aka 'Tape') Fractal Two: Medium Lines - "Intermediate Term Trend" (aka 'Traverse') Fractal Three: Thick Lines - "Longer Term Trend" (aka 'Channel') Each of the above three fractals does in fact describe, in a crystal clear fashion, a financial data series. Since trends overlap, so too do we see each of the above three fractals overlap. See Attached. R2R 2B 2R or B2B 2R 2B always remains constant. By definition, the components of one fractal exist on all fractals - irrespective of scale. Applying the fractal rules in a consistant fashion represents a challange most people face. I have not "instructed people to investigate fractals." I have instructed people to "understand the definition" of the word - a definition I posted several times - including linking to pictures of same (for those more visually oriented). If the word "Gaussian" provides you difficulty, replace the word with another. Hiking up and down Volume Mountains provides the same mental picture. However, take care not to add words which did not exist in the original discussion. The word Gaussian stands alone, and does not require, nor should one include, the word 'distributions' in the discussion. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
Depending on the context, the answer comes from the former, the latter or both. - Spydertrader
-
Correct. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. Better to learn to define something by what it is, rather than, by what it is not. The very same sequences repeat over and over again, every day, all day long. Nothing changes. You've known them for years. No need to overcomplicate things. Take it step by step, and you'll soon begin to see how the subtle differences create monumental changes in the information signalled to you from the market. - Spdyertrader
-
Spyder said no such thing. The market has no anomolies, kinks, irregularities or unresolved circumstances. B2B 2R 2B R2R 2B 2R That's it. Possible problem areas for people to perfom a mirror check ... 1. Do I understand the definition of the word fractal? 2. Do I apply said defintion onto the market in a consistant fashion? HTH. - Spydertrder
-
As stated in this post... HTH. - Spydertrader
-
A danger exists with using older charts to find one's way. First, depending on the discussion (at the specific point in time of the chart's creation) annotation convention may differ in an effort to highlight the specific area under discussion. In other words, a discussion with respect to a 'faster fractal traverse' would see those areas highlighted in the annotated chart, and possibly, very few (if any 'actual' tapes), whereas currently, this discussion only considers three fractals - tape, traverse and channel (or if you prefer, skinny, medium and thick; L1, L2 & L3). Second (as is the case with this specific chart), the previous annotation convention may not apply to the current discussion at all. For example, note the Gaussians on the chart you attached. They only show two levels. Moving forward, we want to focus on 'seeing' all three levels of Gaussian activity and only three levels. Again, I don't want to discourage the use of older charts. I just want to caustion everyone to view these artifacts as intended at the time of their creation, and not, from the vantage point of an improved knowledge plateau. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
I wish you tremendous success in your future endeavors. - Spydertrader
-
Always and without exception. - Spydertrader
-
Whether through falsification or validation, the entire process begins with starting at a baseline of understanding. Whatever information comprises said baseline matters little, but the baseline of understanding must exist in order to begin. Currently, you have provided an annotation baseline which fails to provide you any worthwhile information The whole purpose of this thread involves learning a process one which shows how (and where) to differentiate that which people believe from that which actually exists. However, you appear to favor a different process. You (along with a few others) seem to feel having me provide answers to your questions represents the best and most efficient path toward success. I've suggested (instead) a path whereby the individual learns to obtain their answers from the one location which is always right - the market. Not all that long ago, you simply refused to place Volume on your charts - opting instead to learn about the Price / Volume Relationship by using Volatility as a proxy. To be clear, everyone should feel entitled to learn about the Price / Volume Relationship in any manner they feel best suits their needs. Understand, I really do not care whether or not you follow the advice provided in this thread (or others), nor do I hold any ill will toward you in any way shape or form. However, if you can't see something (which exists right in front of your face), and several people advise you how you can go about the process of learning to see it, perhaps something of value can be gleaned from following directions. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
Your Gaussians have no variation in line thickness, nor do they show variation in color (red or black), nor have you chosen to show Price annotation in this specific example. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and suggest, perhaps, creating thoroughly annotated charts provides more information to the trader than you currently have the ability to see. So how about you give creating a thoroughly annotated chart a try. Even if you get everything incorrect at first, you'll (at least) start to learn the process (finally). - Spydertrader
-
No such circumstance exists - ever. - Spydertrader
-
It appears you continue to miss my point. Whatever something "looks like" in the Price Pane falls under the catagory of unimportant because a tape does not ever look like a traverse (or anything else) when observing the Volume Pane. You can call something a tape, traverse or channel (hell, call it a goat if you like) by looking at a Price Pane, but Volume always indicates exactly what the market has built for you to see. Without exception. Three choices exist, and we call these three choices tapes, traverses and channels (skinny, medium and thick; or L1, L2 & L3 if you prefer different nomenclature). No more 'Chubby' tapes. No more 'Faster Fractal' Traverses. No more Lateral 'Movement.' Tapes build Traverses and Traverses Build Channels. Again, whatever something "looks like" in the Price pane does not matter in the slightest. The Gaussians always tell you what the market has created. Without a doubt, if asked, a roomful of traders would provide as many answers with respect to what the market created across most of today (7-20-2009). Again, if one chooses to look at what today's 'something' "looks like" by observing the Price Pane, a variety of opinions develop. However, only one possible accurate answer exists, and it resides in the signals the market has provided in The Volume Pane. HTH. - Spydertrader
-
Absolutely correct. In this example, Volume told you everything required to arrive at a correct decision. In most every other example, such is not the case. Hence, Jack's frequent posts on, "how one could almost do this with Volume alone." - Spydertrader
-
No. Neoxx asked about this specific example. He wanted to know, (paraphrased), "Whether or not one would still know a traverses existed if a trader had no access to the Price pane." Applying my answer to all Traverses (and not just this specific example) represents an action 'outside the boundaries of the question.' The Gaussians existed (were already drawn on the chart snip), prior to, Neoxx posting his question. The entire point of these discussions represents my attempt to motivate people to learn the process of differentiation. As we noticed recently while observing the discussions between romanus and PointOne, people 'see' things differently (please note: I did not use the terms, 'correctly' or 'incorrectly'). People also interpret words and phrases differently based on their own internal 'filters' which resulted from various life experiences. As such, learning the process of differentiation represents the best way for someone to know the intended meaning of words and phrases equals what the presenter intended, and more importantly, that the recipient understood as accurate and precise. For example, "The YM leads the ES." represents a true and accurate statement. However, "The YM Leads the ES at points of change," represents, not only a true and accruate statement, but one which is more precise. I once made the error of adding a different qualifier to the original assertion. My mental filters decided I had heard the words, "The YM leads the ES all the time," when nobody had inferred nor implied such a thing. Only when I differentiated all possible meanings of the original phrase did I arrive at the correct interpretation. To that end, I started this thread. - Spydertrader
-
By quoting Neoxx and highlighting certain areas of the quote, when I used the phrase "anything jump out at you?" I was referring to the orange highlighted section of Neoxx's question in that Neoxx chose to request an answer for this specific example only, and not, all examples. - Spydertrader
-
Neoxx used the phrase "in this example" in his question. You didn't notice the highlighted orange section within the portion of his post I quoted? Since Neoxx chose to discuss this example instead of all examples, he has provided boundaries for his question. Your post applied my answer (to his question) outside those boundaries. In other words, my answer does not apply to all examples - only this one. You arrived at a specific conclusion. That being, the attachments you posted represent "legitimate alternatives" to what I have stated. I encourage everyone to compare these "legitimate alternatives" against known areas of the market where one knows what the market has provided. In other words, one needs to compare and contrast the "legitimate alternatives" against an area of the market where the same thing occurs and determine if the conclusion of "legitimate alternatives" represents a valid viewpoint or wishful thinking. - Spydertrader
-
Need a Source for Upcoming Announcements
Spydertrader replied to TraderFoo's topic in Market News & Analysis
Several examples .... Forex Factory Barron's MSN Earnings.com - Spydertrader -
One begins with the knowledge that all markets exist on a fractal basis. By understanding the correct definition (here is another for those with a more visual orientation) of the word 'fractal' (and applying said understanding onto the market itself) one can then understand how no anomalies, exceptions or peculiarities can exist - ever. - Spydertrader