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.
dkm
-
Content Count
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by dkm
-
If 09:45 is the start of your skinny b2b then 14:55 cannot possibly be the end of the skinny 2r. That would put p3 below p1 of your sequence. FWIW.
-
Would you please explain how to recognize 13:20-14:00 as the non-dom 2b of r2r2b2r beginning at 12:40 and not a dominant 2b of b2b2r2b beginning at 11:40? It seems that many of us annotated 12:40 as p2 of a long sequence and 13:20 as its p3. Thank you
-
If you consider the gap, you will see that your 09:20 bar must be a p1. Something like the attached...perhaps....
-
if your b2b is correct then your red rtl cannot possibly be correct
-
Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:
-
So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?
-
A two day perspective...perhaps... :missy:
-
25-26 February 2010 or perhaps...
-
Crystal clear in terms of open, high, low, close and volume traded, I agree. But I fail to see how it is crystal clear what "fractal" the market is operating on and where we are in that fractal volume sequence. If this is what you mean by "crystal clear", then would you please give an example of how we are meant to see this? Thank you
-
Those definitions look very odd. I would expect: velocity = price change / time pace = no. of contracts traded / time
-
Thank you for your explanation. My only concern is that pace doesn't seem to be very "binary".
-
Would you be so kind as to explain how?
-
<sigh> The non stationary window simply represents the period of time from the beginning to the end of a volume sequence b2b2r2b or r2r2b2r. It is a window that begins at the start of the sequence and ends and the end of a sequence. When we reach the end of a sequence, a new window begins. The window is "stationary" for the duration of each sequence and then "moves" when a new sequence begins. Because it moves at the end of each sequence, it is considered to be"non-stationary". Clear as mud now? IMHO the phrase is totally superfluous and confusing. Until an explanation is given for how one is supposed to determine what fractal one is looking at, those asking questions will remain confused. This thread could really go somewhere if we stopped the riddles and provided some clear explanation.
-
re 28 Jan 2010 15:15 outside bar Perhaps this is how it should be annotated, so 15:15 and 15:20 are the 2r of a b2b2r2b olive that forms the 2B of blue. Difficult to know in real time if one doesn't know that a faster sequence is in play. An explanation of how to know would be really useful.
-
"Ezzy's lateral" - 09:45 25th Jan. Spydertrader suggested that I look at the YM to assist with my difficulty to see the 2b on the ES. http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-124.html#post87581
-
The answer that you are seeking is NO.
-
The lateral at 11:20 on the 26th Jan is post p3, so it must be the 2b portion of the b2b-2r-2b. "Ezzy's lateral", which I presume is the lateral beginning at 09:45 on the 25th Jan, contains the 2r-2b portion of the b2b-2r-2b sequence beginning at 16:05 on the 24th Jan. I personally cannot see the 2b portion on the ES 5 min but it would seem that the ym is sufficient to confirm that it exists.
-
Along with many others, I do not understand the point that you are trying to make.
-
I presume that this response means that I am unwittingly considering more than one "type" of lateral. For the sake of clarity will you please define what this "one sort of lateral" is that you are referring to instead of repeatedly referring to other posts that were equally confusing. Thanks
-
I think the implication is that when a lateral CONTAINS a bar with a high or low equal to that of the first bar of the lateral then this is ONE type of lateral, as compared to the kind of lateral that occurs where no bars have a high or low equal to the first bar of the lateral. Only a guess mind you....
-
Do you mean 3 examples of laterals whose boundary has been defined by a subsequent bar inside the lateral? Do you consider a lateral that has a bar defining the lateral high as different from lateral that has a bar defining the lateral low? Are we to consider dominant or non dominant as a difference? Are we to consider volume on the first bar of the lateral as a difference? Are we to consider volume on the bar that defines the lateral boundary as a difference? Something else perhaps? Trying to find "entirely different things from each other" without knowing what one is looking for is an ambiguous task.
-
OK, for the benefit of those trying to follow what is being discussed, the focus is on laterals that contain a bar with a high or low that matches the high or low of the first bar of the lateral. Presumably this has some implication yet to be clarified.
-
Unfortunately that post did not help me in any way because I have yet to understand what it is you are alluding to with respect to differentiating laterals. It now seems that the boundary of a lateral is defined by a bar within the lateral and something is implied by whether or not it has incr or decr volume. This could take forever..............
-
I thought that the 2r had to close outside the b2b..... this is getting very subjective if we are going intrabar
-
I see the b2b2r but not the 2b.