[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by patrader »

The "emphasis" i was referring to was the use of lite gray(vs.black or red) for non-dom gaussians lines on my charts.

Thanks for providing additional clarification for me.

- Spydertrader

[patrader]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Thanks for providing additional clarification for me.

- Spydertrader

YW.Transferring correctly in this medium for me can be a challenge it appears.

[Breakeven]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

O.K. Now, if if you know something ended at 10:30 on the 15th, and that something represents the exact same something that ended on the 13th (at 2:15), then you also know what must come next with respect to the next thing (which begins at 10:30 on the 15th).

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Have you annotated in the exact same fashion (based on context, pace and order of events) for each of these two areas?

Previous Chart

Newly posted revised chart snip.

Note the location differences in the medium weight pink line.

- Spydertrader

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!

[patrader]

On another note,lately i have been putting alot of effort in reference to anything "non-dominant "in order to better annotate and read this portion of the order of events.I reviewed spydertrader's more recent charts(price and volume panes) and his comments both here and in other journals.One of the reasons was i noticed that sometimes volume bars may "increase"(in relation to the previous bar) but he still annotated a non-dominant gaussian line on his chart(especially on the medium and thick lines).This at first appeared to not confirm to the gaussian volume sequences as shown on page one of this journal.What i discovered of course, was others had crossed this path before and advice had been offered. Quote from dkm:

Frequently I see increasing volume on the non dom traverse from pt2 to pt3 and then pt3 forms with decreasing volume in the dominant direction. This is not a rare occurence and it continues to confuse me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Three things create the scenario you describe.

1. Formation Break Outs (as you have in your clip)

2. 'Missed' (ommitted annotation) channels

3. Intra-Bar Gaussian Shift (Price switches from Dominant to Non-Dominant Intra-Bar)

If you have any (or a combination) of the three, anticipate seeing increasing Volume on the Non-Dominant Traverse.

- Spydertrader Check out the "increasing" black bar at 10:05 est.First it comes after the dom red down sequence then the market forms a ftp(see number 1 scenario above) formation and breaks out on "increased" volume but this is still a non-dominant event.This "aha" explained the volume pane confusion but what about the price pane? Then i found this by spyder"Gaussian lines track dominant vs non-dominant Price Movement".Price movement? WOW.If the red down sequence is dom than this black price sequence has to be non-dom and next the dom sequence will be red and that would complete the order of events at least on this fractal.Of course, you got the nesting and possible ve's plus maybe fanning the rtl but this really helped me "see" things better.hth

[cnms2]

Originally Posted by Breakeven »

...

OBs are new PT1s.
R2Rs are were black RTLs are crossed.
Try to be very accurate with your annotations, and build them up from the finest observable both on volume and price.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Breakeven »

This is what led to my question about ES only or needing to use the YM?

Your latest annotations bring you much, much closer to the actual information provided by the market.

Some things to keep in mind:

1. Your Pink (first one) down Traverse has a Point One in the incorrect location. If the medium pink trend lines represent acceleration, you do not have a new Point One. The first tape, the first traverse and the channel itself all have the same Point One (Red Number One on your chart) - always and without exception.

2. Note the Pace changes. Pace influences all frctals - not just medium and thick.

With respect to the use of the YM, pull up a YM chart for the timeframe of your final down traverse (ending at 10:30). What does the YM show you that you cannot see on the ES? Now, look back at the ES. What thing appears to have obscured your view?

Use the YM to locate answers for when you find yourself 'stuck.' Apply these answers onto the ES. Soon, you'll see through the fog which appears to obscure your current view.

In such a fashion, you'll learn how not become 'stuck' in the first place.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

Edit: Please note the above post with respect to the use of the YM does not advocate use of the YM for trading purposes (even though, one could do so with positive results). The above post advises using the YM for learning purposes during periods of debrief in an effort to learn to see that which a trader might not yet have learned to see.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by patrader »

Transferring correctly in this medium for me can be a challenge it appears.

LOL. Welcome to my world.

- Spydertrader

[cnms2]

Originally Posted by patrader »

"Your current 'view' of the market as transitioning from increasing to decreasing to increasing again (in terms of Volume) doesn't provide the most accurate interpretation. Instead, monitor from the standpoint of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant again.

Use the Gaussians as an 'indicator' of dominance in order to have them 'match' the trend lines. On many of my charts, the non-dominant portion of the Gaussians do not have the same color as the Volume bars tracked. In other words, the Gaussian lines track dominant vs non-dominant Price Movement, rather than Volume bar coloration. The subtle difference often sits where one finds the market 'mode'.
HTH.

- Spydertrader"

A few portions of spydertrader's comments jumped out at me.First,NON-DOM GAUSSIANS many times DO NOT have the SAME COLOR as the volume bars tracked.Second,dom vs non-dom gaussian lines track PRICE MOVEMENT,rather that volume bar coloration.Third,use the gaussians as an "INDICATOR" of dominance.Hence the emphasis on dominant gaussians and less on non-dom gaussians as my "indicator" of market dominance.hth

From outside may seem amusing how we read the same things, but emphasize and conclude different things. To me the highlighted phrase says that alternation in dominance should be reflected in the annotated color (as it is important), but that it is not always the same as the volume bars' color. For a red container the gaussians should be R2R2B2R while volume bars may not exactly mirror this (note: the first R is the last non-dominant of the previous, overlapped black container).