[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

What else might differentiate these three - from each other and from the rest of the market?

Originally Posted by dkm »

This is too vague.

Sesame Street teaches young children how to look for differences in things by using muppets and singing songs.

YouTube - One of these things is not like the other things.

YouTube - One of these things is not like the other things.

Originally Posted by dkm »

Since "context" has never been defined, this is also too vague.

An online dictionary defines context as ...

"the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc."

Applying this definition, we can understand hearing someone yell, "Fire!" - while observing an execution by firing squad provides a far different meaning than hearing someone yell, "Fire!" while sitting in a crowded movie theater.

In the latter, the word 'fire' represents a 'noun' (i.e. "Something is burning"). In the former, the word 'fire' represents a 'verb' (i.e. "Pull the trigger and shoot the guy").

Context (the location or circumstances which surround the event) alters the meaning of the word.

Certainly, everyone can think of circumstances (or events) whereby the context in which the trader views Price and Volume (Monitor) alters the meaning (analysis) of what the market has signalled.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

[dkm]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Sesame Street teaches young children how to look for differences in things by using muppets and singing songs.
- Spydertrader

An amusing analogy but not entirely correct. Sesame Street actually points out the correct answer. To set tasks and never give an explanation is no way to achieve transference.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by dkm »

Sesame Street actually points out the correct answer.

In the exact same fashion as Sesame street, the market provides all answers required of the trader. One simply needs to go and look.

Originally Posted by dkm »

To set tasks and never give an explanation is no way to achieve transference.

I have designed the tasks / drills in such a way as to provide for everyone the initial steps toward differentiation - to learn how to see the differences between that which people believe they see from that which actually exists. I have not designed the tasks as a 'quiz' for receiving grades.

Some have found this process (of learning differentiation) extremely helpful. A few have experienced a lightening strike as a result.

Transference results from a fully differentiated mind. In other words, people don't need me to provide answers for them, nor do they need another thread full of posts. They only need the market and their own brain.

As such, already have you that which you need.

- Spydertrader

[cnms2]

I guess ... a useful discussion would be to compare contexts: like 1335 and 1550 laterals, or 1120 and 1210 outside bars, or 1140 and 1525 spikes, etc.. Coming with clear examples, clearly explaining your thought process and conclusions, then asking for comments, would get everybody much more from this thread.

[ljyoung]

Originally Posted by cnms2 »

I guess ... a useful discussion would be to compare contexts: like 1335 and 1550 laterals, or 1120 and 1210 outside bars, or 1140 and 1525 spikes, etc.. Coming with clear examples, clearly explaining your thought process and conclusions, then asking for comments, would get everybody much more from this thread.

That's a great idea cnms2. IMO, one of the most important providers of context is the position of price in respect of the fractal on which the trader is trading, i.e., where am I in so far as points 1, 2, and 3 are concerned. If you know 'where' you are, then you know what must come next. If you don't know 'where' you are, then your ability to appreciate the correct context of a particular construct/situation will be zero. As we all know, this sort of confusion can be exquisitely frustrating. On the other hand when you 'know' WMCN, the battle while far from being won, is considerably more in your favour.

Bottom line, IMO. You MUST know WMCN or forget about context.

lj

[rs5]

28 July 2009 - Spydertrader, please comment on the gausian lines, are these the correct interpretation?

[rs5]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

See Attached.



- Spydertrader

Thank you. It looks like all formations that stalls the flow is a flaw. Is that correct?

[cnms2]

Originally Posted by rs5 »

28 July 2009 - Spydertrader, please comment on the gausian lines, are these the correct interpretation?

Let me remind you about the fractal structure of the market. With the gaussians you've drawn, can you build the next level of gaussians using only r2r2b2r and b2b2r2b sequences? If not, you've probably jumped fractals. Also, where does the through of the r2r or b2b happen?