[gucci]

Spyder,

would the information provided by the Gaussians to the right of the marked ftt in the attached chart suffice, in order to unambiguously classify "this something" as a traverse. If so, would it be dominant or non-dominant one?

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by gucci »

would the information provided by the Gaussians to the right of the marked ftt in the attached chart suffice, in order to unambiguously classify "this something" as a traverse. If so, would it be dominant or non-dominant one?

Your Gaussians have no variation in line thickness, nor do they show variation in color (red or black), nor have you chosen to show Price annotation in this specific example. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and suggest, perhaps, creating thoroughly annotated charts provides more information to the trader than you currently have the ability to see.

So how about you give creating a thoroughly annotated chart a try. Even if you get everything incorrect at first, you'll (at least) start to learn the process (finally).

- Spydertrader

[gucci]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Your Gaussians have no variation in line thickness, nor do they show variation in color (red or black), nor have you chosen to show Price annotation in this specific example. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and suggest, perhaps, creating thoroughly annotated charts provides more information to the trader than you currently have the ability to see.

So how about you give creating a thoroughly annotated chart a try. Even if you get everything incorrect at first, you'll (at least) start to learn the process (finally).

- Spydertrader

Spyder,

I find myself in a position, where anything I say about your last two answers can and will be interpreted as an attempt to debate something. The reasonable decision in such a situation is to abstain from it. So I will comply.

Your suggestion to embark upon differentiation process is without question a conducive one. As far as I understand the nature of the above mentioned process and am able to educe its appropriate modus operandi, I would associate it with falsifying the theories in critical rationality. With your knowledgeable answers I hoped to falsify my theories about some relationships between price and volume and move on. This would be really helpful, I thought.

By the way, my last question didn’t have anything to do with annotations at all (Gaussians are Gaussians, do they have anything to do with annotations?). But I guess that was my fault, because I asked it.

Thank you for your time.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by gucci »

As far as I understand the nature of the above mentioned process and am able to educe its appropriate modus operandi, I would associate it with falsifying the theories in critical rationality.

Whether through falsification or validation, the entire process begins with starting at a baseline of understanding. Whatever information comprises said baseline matters little, but the baseline of understanding must exist in order to begin. Currently, you have provided an annotation baseline which fails to provide you any worthwhile information

Originally Posted by gucci »

With your knowledgeable answers I hoped to falsify my theories about some relationships between price and volume and move on. This would be really helpful, I thought.

The whole purpose of this thread involves learning a process one which shows how (and where) to differentiate that which people believe from that which actually exists.

However, you appear to favor a different process. You (along with a few others) seem to feel having me provide answers to your questions represents the best and most efficient path toward success. I've suggested (instead) a path whereby the individual learns to obtain their answers from the one location which is always right - the market.

Originally Posted by gucci »

By the way, my last question didn’t have anything to do with annotations at all (Gaussians are Gaussians, do they have anything to do with annotations?). But I guess that was my fault, because I asked it.

Not all that long ago, you simply refused to place Volume on your charts - opting instead to learn about the Price / Volume Relationship by using Volatility as a proxy. To be clear, everyone should feel entitled to learn about the Price / Volume Relationship in any manner they feel best suits their needs.

Understand, I really do not care whether or not you follow the advice provided in this thread (or others), nor do I hold any ill will toward you in any way shape or form. However, if you can't see something (which exists right in front of your face), and several people advise you how you can go about the process of learning to see it, perhaps something of value can be gleaned from following directions.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

[dkm]

So, “our gaussians must match our trend lines” and “our gaussians always tell us what has been created”. Our trend lines come from correctly drawn tapes, traverses and channels so clearly, the trendlines have to be drawn first in order that the gaussians can be drawn to match the trendlines. For the gaussians to tell us what has been created, am I correct in assuming that we use the volume sequences b2b2r2b or r2r2b2r?

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by dkm »

For the gaussians to tell us what has been created, am I correct in assuming that we use the volume sequences b2b2r2b or r2r2b2r?

Always and without exception.

- Spydertrader

[gucci]

Spyder,

the first passage in your response doesn't have anything to do with the quote.

In your second two passages, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the quote and the second one tries to obnubilate a reprehension.

The last two paragraphs simply contain some tinglers.

Thank you for your time, Spyder.

PS: Guys, I apologies for this "rude" answer, I won't bother you anymore with my posts.

I wish all of you a lot of success.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by gucci »

Thank you for your time, Spyder.

I wish you tremendous success in your future endeavors.

- Spydertrader