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.
ptunic
-
Content Count
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by ptunic
-
Monday, May 10, 2010.
-
Tuesday, April 20, 2010.
-
Thursday, April 15, 2010.
-
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.
-
On a random topic, when anyone here is drawing Traverse and Channel lines, do you find you have to first have an annotated chart for the last several days? And then you squeeze your chart time setting so 2-5 days all fit on the screen at once, and only then annotate your Channel lines (and sometimes Traverses too if the Tapes that day are long-lasting)? I find it very difficult to analyze Channel (and often Traverse) trend lines without "zooming out", was just curious if I am doing this completely incorrectly or this is what is commonly done. On another topic, I've been playing with the new TN Gap Elimination Tool as well as constant trendline angle tool, and these are huge timesavers! Thanks to Spydertrader and anyone else who worked on this. I do have one feedback item (might be something I'm doing wrong), after a new day starts and the overnight gap is eliminated, my previous annotations don't get adjusted so they are off. I'm hoping there is a way for me to grab these annotations and move them up/down all at once to compensate, got to tinker with it some more. The new tools are a big help though!
-
Tuesday, March 9, 2010.
-
Friday, Mar 05, 2010.
-
Thursday, Mar 04, 2010.
-
Thursday, Feb 25, 2010
-
Thursday, Feb 22, 2010 (in progress)
-
Romanus, I had a pretty similar view on that section to become's analysis (made a mistake bar 2 in real-time though) see attached snippet. Here's my thoughts kind of starting around 15:35 on 02/22/2010: Pink Down Tape: I started this (on my snipet labelled 1 in pink) because of an outside bar/ibgs, with decreasing red. By 15:45 you see the huge red down bar and this is the dominant red part of the pink down tape. Though I didn't label it on this snippet it also breaks a RTL of a Traverse or possible channel as well. Then we get 2 black bars, I label these as non-dominant (pt 2 to pt 3 movement). The end of day volume distorts their volume but once adjusted for end of day volume (which I don't know the rule but just roughly divide it in half or so) they are decreasing black. The last bar of the day is really interesting. I see this as an ibgs. The bar starts with dominant red volume, confirming that it has created the pt 3 of the pink down Tape. However, on the very same bar, price moves all the way back and closes on the open, creating a kind of spike (not sure if these are officially spike bars or not). This to me is an SOC/FTT. I would still want see confirmation, in the form of a BO of the RTL in a bar or two, but other than that by end of bar I am annotating this as the pt 1 of a new black Tape. So let's go to the next bar, which is now beginning of the day, bar 1 of 2/23/2010. I see this as dominant black which confirms that the previous bar was the pt 1 of our new up tape (labeled forest green on my snippet). Actually, this and the next bar I was very much on the fence on, because of the beginning of day volume effects, you could easily make the case the mode was non-dominant (decreasing volume) as well. But for this purpose what I feel makes the most sense is it is dominant black volume. Bar 2 I labelled as non-dominant red volume, thus confirming the previous bar as the pt 2 of the green Up Tape. The reason I did this even though its volume was increasing over the previous bar, was it is an ibgs. With ibgs, I give special wiggle-room if that is the right word, and I assumed that most of the volume was when the bar was making a higher high, as opposed to the downward retrace. I guess if you have YM, you have an advantage since you can look in more granularity, but I only use 5 min ES (and wasn't looking at PRV in real-time either so had no way of knowing). Bar 3, I labelled as dominant black volume, even though volume was slightly decreasing. Again, this gets to mentally splitting up Bar 2 into 2 parts: a high volume increasing black bar and a decreasing red bar. So this confirmed the previous bar (bar 2) was the pt 3 of the black up tape. Bar 4: at this point we are passed the pt 3 so we are looking for a SOC. I'm not sure if the SOC is this bar, or Bar 5, or Bar 6 when you see the lateral formation, but one of the three bars ends the green Up Tape. In realtime, I labelled it differently (incorrectly), thinking the VE was sufficient enough to lead to the NSW moving on this fractal (Up Tape). So I was expecting a decreasing red BBT and than an increasing black BBT and then would look for the possibly final FTT. Of course that didn't happen, so I need to spend more debrief on when VE's are FTTs versus move the NSW. It is very possible the Green Tape is a BBT or sub-fractal, instead of a Tape, but I labelled it as a Tape.
-
I know this is a cop-out answer but imo there just isn't any 1 "holy grail" sentance, paragraph, or even 10 pages Spydertrader could post (well, maybe 200 pages ) that would fully answer this. If you look at some old threads on the previous website, Spydertrader many times went bar-by-bar and wrote 5 detailed sentences with multiple charts per bar explaining the context, mode, sequences etc (Romanus himself was a leading participant in these and did a great job asking questions and providing analysis as well). I think this can be helpful, and at the end of the day it is binary (or deterministic, or crystal clear, or whatever you want to call it) but the caveat is there are dozens of factors with 10000s of combinations. But much like in chess if you learn how to use your bishop to pin the opposing king in one square, it translates to you easily able to learn similar ways to pin the opponent with other pieces and other squares. So one pattern really solves about 1000 combinations or more. If Spydertrader went through this process, besides of course being exceedingly unpleasant for him and frustrating for many of us (remember the "pulling teeth" threads on an earlier site?), our rate of learning would just be too slow. Far faster to teach someone how to fish than throw them fish each day. Hense the emphasis on us looking at the process. What the lateral drill really is trying to show you is how to test your hypothesis by reviewing things that look kind of similar and notice subtle differences and if/when they consistently change the outcome. We can take the same lateral drill process and apply it to other laterals (non-conforming) for example. In other words as nearly every successful trader (even of other methods than this) has told me, tremendous screen time and debrief is required. It's kind of like riding a bicycle in that respect, you can give someone a 50 page manual explaining physics or you can say get on the horse, yeah you will fall down at first, but you will learn how to ride faster than the person in the classroom. I think it's kind of like a jigsaw puzzle, even though you are usually just making very tiny gains in your knowledge, that sometimes don't feel like huge victories, over time it starts to add up and the big sets of pieces start to fit in with each other. It is a war of many skirmishes (I guess like anything in life). I also do think it is possible to learn this in a reasonable amount of time, as rs5 for example has demonstrated. I'm not sure her secret besides great focus + hard work but it is working This is all just my opinion of course.
-
Thx I have to say when I annotated today in real-time (or pseudo-real time, bar by bar walk-forward), I missed pretty much everything, I don't think I got more than 1 container correct. I thought it would be one of those days where even end of day it would be tough to put a complete (attempted) chart together, but luckily it started to fall into place. Usually fanning and container acceleration (VE/NSW shifts) confuse me the most, as well as laterals, sub-fractals, and fractal jumping. I guess that's almost everything
-
Monday, Feb 22, 2010
-
Re: Post #1467 I looked at this several times over the last week, I see one (imo) big difference that may or may not be responsible for the changed outcome. See attached chart: On the 2/5 example, the lateral forms on Decreasing volume. On the 2/17 example, the lateral forms on Increasing volume. Another (probably more minor difference) is on 2/5, the 1st bar of the lateral closes inside the previous bar. On the 2/17 example, the 1st bar of the lateral closes completely outside of the previous bar.
-
Friday, Feb 19, 2010
-
Thursday, Feb 18, 2010.
-
NSW: This is the moving container, that bounds pt 1, pt 2, and pt 3. I think this is very much related to Order of Events (where you are in each Container, eg pt 1 moving to pt 2, etc) / sequence completion, and what that implies for future movement. What rs5 is referring to is frequently when you have a VE, it means you can expect to have what I label as a pt 4 and pt 5 on that same container. Your container will accelerate (steepen) or decelerate ("fan") -- but continue going. The old pt 3 becomes the new pt 1. The pt 4 is the pt 2 of the new NSW. At that point you are trying to form a pt 5 (which is just the pt 3 of the new NSW). I'm not sure in which cases a VE leads to the NSW moving, but it is frequent enough it is one of the first things I try to look for. These situations often lead me to mistakenly jumping fractals though. On a related note, sometimes a container will fan (or even steepen?), and then turn into the next larger container. A Tape can turn into a Traverse for example. I haven't yet differentiated how to tell when this will happen, versus when the NSW enlarges without turning into the next largest container.
-
Wednesday, Feb 17, 2010
-
Wednesday, Feb 17, 2010 (in progress)
-
Wednesday, Feb 17, 2010 (in progress)
-
Wednesday, Feb 17, 2010 (in progress)
-
Tuesday, February 16, 2010.
-
From #1285 (snipets attached for the 2 laterals under discussion, 09:40 and 12:50 on 01/25/2010): I'm trying to isolate the Order of Events difference(s) here. I believe in the second lateral (@ 12:50), it is similar in that you also had a completed sequence. However, the big difference was in the 1st lateral, the completed sequence was in the non-dominant direction of larger trend. While in the second lateral (@ 12:50), the sequences have just completed but as part of dominant movement of the larger trend.
-
Tuesday, Fed 9 2010 I had trouble with finding the Traverses, just annotated the tapes, will check out your charts for ideas. This was an interesting day with the longest Lateral Drill confirming lateral I've seen yet.