[romanus]

Originally Posted by dkm »

...the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

IMO if one chooses to operate with three levels of thickness (both trendlines and gaussians) - for tapes, traverses and channels, then it all comes down to the consistent logic behind placing the gaussians. Everyone who has spent time studying Price/Volume relationship can attest to an intimate familiarity with the fact that Points 1, 2 and 3 of the traverses must be formed as FTT's of 'something' of finer fractal (which would be the TAPE if one choses to restrict themselves to three levels of thickness). The above mentioned tenet of the market is well known to everyone (even though some of us require an occasional reminder - myself included).

Following the logic above, one can be sure that terminating medium level thickness R2R/B2B (reserved for traverses) at anything other than an FTT of 'something' of the finer fractal will result in incorrect gaussian annotations.

4/16/09 provides two examples of such logic - 09:55 and 11:50 both form a VE of the tape and as such can not represent Point 2 of the traverse. In second case, I believe terminating medium level thickness B2B at 12:15 would also result in incorrect placement of Point 2 as price is still moving within the lateral from p2 to p3 of 'something'.

[Ezzy]

Originally Posted by dkm »

Ah, the old "fractal" problem. So far, we have been told that our "fractals" are tapes, traverses or channels. My understanding is that each "fractal" has its own "volume sequence" and that the "gaussians must match the tapes".I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

Yep, the 'ol separating the fractals issue rears it's ugly head. I see it as in part as advanced taping, where the tape is fanned, and what's within it is sub-tape level, or sub-sub tape depending on how many fractals/cycles are within. Quite removed from the basic 2 or 3 bar tapes we start with. I still have trouble with that; when they grow very large, and reasons for growing.

I'm more curious if your reliable informant also confirmed the tape starts at 11:30 instead of 11:00, or if there was a reason to restart there? I would have started it at 11:00 and gone from there.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by nkhoi »

if it was a 'tape' then it was a traverse-size tape.

The path to determing what something is or is not resides in the Volume Pane.

A number of traders have fallen into a very bad habit over the years. They watch the Price Pane of their chart, rather than, spend the bulk of their time focusing on Volume. Let's face it. Price is a lot more fun to watch - especially if Price rockets off in the direction you entered the trade.

Traders do this because they all want to see "how they are doing" in a trade. Enter short, and as long as the market keeps making lower lows you are making some very nice coin. After all, making money is the goal, right?

Well, no. It really isn't.

Sure. We all enjoy banking profits. However, 'Making Money' represents a consequence of the learning process - not the goal.

Learning to see when the sequences of Price and Volume have reached completion across all fractals, learning to correctly and consistantly understand the fractal nature of the market, learning to stay on the right side of the market for one's specific trading fractal - these all represent goals.

Learn these things and the result of doing so is profits.

In other words, the 'mental image' everyone needs to develop, with respect to a tape, traverse or channel, comes not from the Price Pane, but instead resides in the Volume Pane.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

[Neoxx]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

This Morning's non-dominant traverse.

If the price pane were blanked out in this example, should we still know we have a traverse rather than a tape?

If we were expecting a Dominant (rather than a non-dominant) traverse, would the same answer hold true?

Many thanks,
Neo

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Neoxx »

If the price pane were blanked out in this example, should we still know we have a traverse rather than a tape?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Neoxx »

If we were expecting a Dominant (rather than a non-dominant) traverse, would the same answer hold true?

Yes.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

[PointOne]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Everyone who has spent time studying Price/Volume relationship can attest to an intimate familiarity with the fact that Points 1, 2 and 3 of the traverses must be formed as FTT's of 'something' of finer fractal (which would be the TAPE if one choses to restrict themselves to three levels of thickness). The above mentioned tenet of the market is well known to everyone (even though some of us require an occasional reminder - myself included).

Really? Are Point 2s always FTTs of something? If it's a tenet, it's one I've missed. Which is somewhat galling after 2.5+ years of "this stuff".

In my experience, Point 2s regularly form on a VE of the next faster fractal, at a coincident peak in volume. There's even an example posted by Spydertrader a few posts back:
P2 on VE

[gucci]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Following the logic above, one can be sure that terminating medium level thickness R2R/B2B (reserved for traverses) at anything other than an FTT of 'something' of the finer fractal will result in incorrect gaussian annotations.

Hi romanus,

I do not know whether I interpreted the quoted sentence the way it was supposed to be, so bear with me. But there seems to be a tacit implication that FTT represents the ONLY POSSIBLE end effect (i.e. completion) of a sequence on any fractal?

[gucci]

Originally Posted by dkm »

Ah, the old "fractal" problem. So far, we have been told that our "fractals" are tapes, traverses or channels. My understanding is that each "fractal" has its own "volume sequence" and that the "gaussians must match the tapes".I came unstuck when I was reliably informed that the period from 11:05 to 13:05 on the attached chart was "just a tape".....

Spyder, would you please take the peculiarities of this specific "tape" apart if this indeed is one? TIA.