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.
Breakeven
-
Content Count
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Breakeven
-
Thanks for the comments guys. Your thoughts make a lot of sense. I need to roll this around in my head for a bit. Thanks again!
-
I am with you there. I agree that if this is a traverse (and I trust that it is) that is the way it must be. What I am wondering about is, where the dominance occurs between pt1>pt2 (see attached). Hell, I don't even see true IBV. Thanks for your thoughts!
-
Jbarnby is correct, that was the last traverse of the channel 10/14/10. I brought it up as there seemed to be some similarities with Frenchfry's container, and because of the disscussion of the existence non-dom containers.
-
This seems like a nice opening to ask a question I have concerning dominance. The cycle of a Traverse is non-dom>dom(x2x) / non-dom(2y) / dom(2x). So for this chart we have a tape that takes care of non-dom>dom of the Traverse up through 11:05. But where is the dominance? I have always understood (probably incorrectly) that dominance concerns both Price and Volume. In this chart I do not see any dominance happening up through 11:05 so how can the non-dom>dom portion of a Traverse be satisfied? I know (heh) that a Traverse requires dominance in the 2x (post pt3) portion of the cycle in order to complete. Am I incorrect that dominance is also required in the x2x (pt1>pt2) portion of the cycle? Chart reposted with a little diagram from Spyder (at least I think it was from him). Thanks!
-
I quoted Ezzy and Gucci here but I am throwing this out for anyone who would like to comment. It seems that the lack of a non-dom container in Frenchfry's example helps to determine what the example cannot be. There is no non-dom tape, so the X2X continues. How can this be applied to the attached? This example is a dom Traverse of a down Channel (pt3>end of the Channel) according to Spyder. What is different in P/V in this example so that there is no need for a non-dom container? There are no annotations for ease of drawing if anyone is willing. Thanks
-
Thank you Sir! Hole nicely filled in.
-
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I really appreciate that you all took the time to consider my questions. It was not my intention to change convention or to create confusion. I drew what I thought would be the most simple way to convey my question. Unfortunately I seem to have created problems in understanding rather than clarifying my question. I know that the communication problem here is me. Please let me take a while to attempt to clarify in a later post. Thank you! Thank you very much for those examples! That is an excellent visual for seeing how pace effects changes. As for the real examples, I can't seem to convey my thoughts with "perfect"(?) theoretical examples. I have no doubt that at the moment any attempt on my part to do so with real examples would be worse. As I said to SK0 above I am going to try a more clear example if I can think of a way to do so. This statement is heading toward my question! To be honest, my question is focused on a single word in this statement. Please let me break this down into pieces to make sure I am on the same page. If I have a tape, and there are several fractals within that tape. This is exactly my focus for the question. Regardless of the reason those fractals exist in the Tape, the fact is they exist. Lets leave it at that. They exist. once the tape's RTL is broken. Ok, the Tape with the several fractals within is complete. The next Tape is underway. It is the construction of this next Tape that is the focus of my question. But, please don't stop reading here because the last part of your statement is the linchpin for my question. all those fractals, no matter how many, are done. And here is the single word that clarifies my question: done. Are they done -OR- are they gone? Please let me be specific on the difference between done/gone. Done = Complete, but must still be respected in terms of fractal overlap in the construction of the next Tape. Gone = I do not need to concern myself with them in the construction of the next Tape. all those fractals, no matter how many, are ____ I sincerely hope that I didn't just dig a deeper hole. Thank you all very much for your time.
-
Thank you very much for the reply. The next faster fractal may also become visible when pace stays the same The next faster fractal may also become visible when pace increases Depending on the context of course. Please don't take that the wrong way. I am not arguing with you. I understand and agree with you that pace can have an effect on what fractals are visible. But there must be a more fundamental explanation for how a fractal can "disappear" because an increase in pace does not always cause this to happen. For example, in the attached (repost from above), if that first set of Blue lines (which is labeled as a Tape b2b) is an increase in pace, does that automatically mean that the BBT's have "disappeared"? If the answer is no, then I would think that pace changes would be a clue to look for fractal changes but it can't be the "reason". Again, please don't think that I am arguing with you. This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for. Thank you very much for your thoughts!
-
Thank you very much. The fact that both those diagrams were identical (just on a lower fractal) is indeed of value. I agree that it is obvious they are identical, but I have chased my tail on what I consider to be obvious too many times. It is helpful to have agreement on the obvious. So, my exact question: What am I building? Please bear with me while I explain where I am having a disconnect with reality. We all know that what something is cannot be determined in a vacuum. What something looks like has no bearing on what it actually is. The key to determining what something is depends on Context and Order of Events. "What am I building?" Arrive at that answer correctly and all is right with the world. Please picture a stylized Channel built by 3 Traverses (my drawing #1 posted above). At the end of this Channel (where the Blue lines begin), "What am I building?". Answer: a new Channel built by Traverses built by Tapes. So, I start with a Tape which builds X2X of Traverse and so on. Simple. Now please picture a stylized Traverse built by 3 Tapes with complete observable volume cycles (my drawing #2 posted above). At the beginning of this example we have a perfect X2X, but this X2X is not in position to be Pt 2 of a Traverse (it is still inside old Traverse RTL), thus it must be Pt 2 of the Tape. We have a "fractal drop". The Traverse being built then goes on and is completed by 3 perfect and identical Tapes. At the end of this Traverse (where the Blue lines begin), "What am I building?". Answer: a new Traverse built by Tapes built by BBT's/goats/whatever. So, I start with a BBT/goat/whatever which builds X2X of Tape and so on. Simple....or not. This second example describes one way for lower fractals to become "visible". We have added a visible fractal. I have no issues concerning this as it seems obvious. If you disagree with my "fractal drop" please don't hesitate to call me out on this. Now, finally, my disconnect with reality when it comes to asking "What am I building?". If there is a mechanism for "adding" a visible fractal using the tenants of fractal overlap detailed on good 'ole Clean Page 4 there must be a way to "subtract" a visible fractal. Otherwise, eventually, Traverses would last for years. As anytime a new fractal drop occurred we would just keep digging a deeper fractal hole. But I can't for the life of me think of a way to maintain fractal integrity and "subtract" a visible fractal. I know that it must happen and that it does happen. But how could it happen without "jumping" a fractal? Long story short: If the market can add a visible fractal without invalidating Clean Page 4, it must also be possible to subtract a visible fractal per Clean Page 4. How can this subtraction happen? Thanks very much!
-
Thank you! So, since the market is fractal, we can't go from a down Traverse straight to B2B of an up Channel. We must first build an up Traverse which is B2B of the up Channel. This makes perfect sense. So, what happens when a Traverse is built of Tapes that are themselves built of something smaller? Would you agree with my Gaussians for the Blue thing in this attachment? Thanks again!
-
Thank you very much. But you ended my Blue lines a bit before where my question intended. I have updated the drawing again. In each drawing, a Down Channel has just ended where the Blue lines begin. What fractal has the Blue built? Thanks!
-
Updated drawing. In drawing 1 & 2, the Blue lines are B2B of what fractal?
-
I have a question regarding staying on the correct fractal. Instead of a drawn out explanation, I will let the attachment speak for itself. In drawings 1 & 2, the blue lines are B2B of what fractal? Thanks very much for any thoughts!
-
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. 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.
-
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!
-
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:
-
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!
-
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
-
I am not exactly sure what you mean by Pace. I have done some searching and can't decipher if it is just volume levels/peaks or the speed that a fractal completes or the volatility of price. Could you give us a bit of a primer on what exactly Pace is? Thanks very much!
-
Edit: nm...................
-
Progress! Thank you for this. On a somewhat related note, is it possible to have more than just a down Traverse(s) en route from Pt 1 to Pt 2 of a Channel? For example, would it be possible to have Down Traverse > Up Traverse > Down Traverse between Pt 1 and Pt 2 of the Channel? I have always believed that Pt 1 to Pt 2 of a Channel must be a "single" (acc's notwithstanding) Traverse. But over the last few days I have begun to question this assertion. I want to do some more investigation on this before I pester you with my craziness. Yes! I knew I was on the right track here! A bit more investigation to gain some certainty and this one will be put to bed. I felt like I had just sat down for an all you can eat buffet while reading this post. Choice morsels everywhere! Thank you so very much for your time and patience!
-
Yes. Those two charts are not annotated in the same way. Previous Chart shows my original annotations for Traverse #3 of the Channel which I believe now to be incorrect. Newly posted revised chart snip shows annotations for Traverse #3 that must be correct but I am having issues as to how best to arrive at the fact it is a Traverse. This is what led to my question about ES only or needing to use the YM? I am really sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have been more clear when posting those charts. In an effort to redeem myself a bit, attached is a chart of the entire 10-13 to 10-15 timeframe under discussion. I do have issues with the last Traverse on this chart but I feel like I am heading in the right direction. Thank you very much for your patient advice!
-
I think I jumped a fractal in trying to convey my meaning. In my last post I was focused only on the morning of the 15th but I did not make that clear. I did not mean to infer that everything up to the 15th was a Traverse. My apologies, I should have attached this chart with the last post. Thanks!
-
Concerning the Traverse (I am now certain of this...no really!) that ended at 10:30et the 15th. I believe I can understand this area being a Traverse using the 2min YM. Not that I am adverse to using the YM for clarity but I want to avoid using it to cover a knowledge gap. I am leaning toward the idea that this Traverse is knowable using only the 5min ES. Is this a reasonable conclusion? TIA
-
I believe the market action following my last chart confirms that it was correct. That first Traverse really needs to end at 15:05 Eastern on the 14th (14:05 on my chart) and everything seems to fit into place. However, the fact that you specifically mentioned 10:30 Eastern on the 15th makes me seriously doubt my annotations for that day. I have the morning of the 15th as a Tape. The lower low it creates gives 100% certainty that the non-dom Traverse which started on the afternoon of the 14th is over. That is pretty much all I can deduce from that timestamp as long as this area is annotated as a Tape. If the morning of the 15th is a Traverse (I now suspect it is) it would end at 10:30. I will admit that this area looks very similar to the chart Gucci started a discussion on a few days ago. My problem is that I have to disprove some of my "facts" to make this a Traverse. :crap: Anyway, this is my chart before the current round of second guessing kicked in. As I have already convinced myself while typing this that I jumped fractals on the 15th there is probably no point in asking. :rofl: Any comments would be very welcome! TIA