[romanus]

As much as I hate to alter my view yet again, this whole down thing is beginning to feel like medium R2R. Based on that subjective measure coupled with the possibility that p2 of monday's down traverse might have occured during the first 15 minutes of the day, the possibility that yesterday was an up traverse beginning to look very promising,

[romanus]

Originally Posted by Breakeven »

I am having a problem reconciling two of the images that Spyder posted near the beginning of the thread. One image shows a Traverse, with Tapes and Channel labeled. The second image is the volume pane fractals. I have combined the images for attachment.

For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse.

Me neither. Consider the possibility that in THIS particular case they don't exist.

Originally Posted by Breakeven »

...From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes.

Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the image is different from the meaning that this image was intended to convey and that the qualifiers highlighted in red represent something you have assumed. My assumption is different and if you replace the 'each' qualifier with 'some', and the 'should' qualifier with 'might', you might arrive at the alternative point of view.

Originally Posted by Breakeven »

So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence.

One school of thought is that the gaussians match the trendlines and not the actual volume bars.

[cnms2]

Originally Posted by Breakeven »

... Part 3 refers to the Gaussian part 1 (rising) and part 2 (falling). Does the part 1 and part 2 combined refer to the R2R of the Tape, or would part 1 be the R2R and part 2 be 2B?

Thanks again for the assistance.

My interpretation is that a gaussian is a volume formation that has an increasing slope followed by a falling slope. We can see gausians formed of volume bars, of groups of bars, of groups of groups of bars, ... x2X2y2X is another type of volume formation. If x, y represent decreasing volume, and X, Y increasing volume, then the gaussian is X2y, or dominant followed by non-dominant. So we have two types of gaussians R2b in down trends and B2r in up trends.

[cnms2]

Originally Posted by romanus »

... One school of thought is that the gaussians match the trendlines and not the actual volume bars.

By this I understand that when trendlines and gaussians are correctly drawn they should make sense. This refers both to the volume bar trends and to their pace.

[Breakeven]

After reviewing the charts I have annotated recently, I now see that all my annotations are one fractal "slow". By trying to draw a complete volume cycle for every Tape using 5min end of bar data I have been getting Tapes where a Traverse is actually present. In effect, my "sub-fractals" are actually Tapes and my Tapes are actually Traverses ect.

I just need to get it through my head that a Traverse is the fastest fractal that will always have a full visible gaussian cycle.

The bad news is that I have drawn a crap load of line that I have "labeled" wrong.

The good news is that since this is all fractal I just need to convince my brain to label these same lines one fractal faster. That should put all my goats in a row For this issue at least!

[Breakeven]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the image is different from the meaning that this image was intended to convey and that the qualifiers highlighted in red represent something you have assumed. My assumption is different and if you replace the 'each' qualifier with 'some', and the 'should' qualifier with 'might', you might arrive at the alternative point of view.

I think this is exactly where I went wrong. In the volume fractal diagram I took the "skinny" lines on one leg of the "medium" to mean that they would be visible for every leg. I now believe those lines are drawn on only one leg to indicate they are only visible on some legs.

Thanks for the help!

[Breakeven]

Originally Posted by cnms2 »

My interpretation is that a gaussian is a volume formation that has an increasing slope followed by a falling slope. We can see gausians formed of volume bars, of groups of bars, of groups of groups of bars, ... x2X2y2X is another type of volume formation. If x, y represent decreasing volume, and X, Y increasing volume, then the gaussian is X2y, or dominant followed by non-dominant. So we have two types of gaussians R2b in down trends and B2r in up trends.

I think I understand what you are saying, but it is late enough tonight that my brain isn't registering correctly. Give me some time on this one and I may pester you with more questions on this subject.

Thanks very much!

[Gregor_S]

I believe romanus’s chart represents the correct view of the past few days and that my view was wrong. I need to find out why I do not monitor correctly. I guess the first thing is that I do not pay enough attention to volume and that my concept of what makes a fractal is not correct.

I have changed some things and this is my view for yesterday, done after market close. The next step in my sequence is pt.2 on a traverse level.