Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Recommended Posts

Based on volume analysis, I believe that on your second chart the new up trend started at 11:00 (pt1), and its pt2 was still to come (so the down trend pt2 and pt3 at the previous flex points).

thurs-fri_ff.thumb.png.eb6b468cb932cfba6c629f4a51a72d50.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on volume analysis, I believe that on your second chart the new up trend started at 11:00 (pt1), and its pt2 was still to come (so the down trend pt2 and pt3 at the previous flex points).

 

In other words, based on gaussians being decreasing, the pink retracement sequence completed at 11:00 and it is not a R2R of a higher fractal as earlier indicated by jbb's chart. And the reason it is not a R2R is we have a pt 2 formed at 9:45 that broke the earlier green RTL. Correspondingly, no R2R is possible since there is no higher fractal RTL on the chart (which means what is occuring at that point of time must be still within a yet higher container or fractal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on volume analysis, I believe that on your second chart the new up trend started at 11:00 (pt1), and its pt2 was still to come (so the down trend pt2 and pt3 at the previous flex points).

Are you suggesting that because the red peaks in the 2R (11:50 to 12:15) are lower than the black peaks in the 2B (11:10 to 45), then the 2R is not on the same fractal as the R2R?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, based on gaussians being decreasing, the pink retracement sequence completed at 11:00 and it is not a R2R of a higher fractal as earlier indicated by jbb's chart. And the reason it is not a R2R is we have a pt 2 formed at 9:45 that broke the earlier green RTL. Correspondingly, no R2R is possible since there is no higher fractal RTL on the chart (which means what is occurring at that point of time must be still within a yet higher container or fractal).
Are you suggesting that because the red peaks in the 2R (11:50 to 12:15) are lower than the black peaks in the 2B (11:10 to 45), then the 2R is not on the same fractal as the R2R?

The volume highlights make more obvious the expected volume sequences on the same fractal. In my previous post I wanted to present a different view of that decreasing red volume section.

thurs-fri_containers.thumb.png.33374f757db83efa8e469eac330e664a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The volume highlights make more obvious the expected volume sequences on the same fractal. In my previous post I wanted to present a different view of that decreasing red volume section.

When comparing volume highlights, do you anticipate the volume highlighted in the 3rd leg of x2x2y2x to be higher than the highlighted area for the 2y leg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When comparing volume highlights, do you anticipate the volume highlighted in the 3rd leg of x2x2y2x to be higher than the highlighted area for the 2y leg?
Yes, I do. When this seems not to happen I'm looking for a faster fractal, pace change, and / or an annotation error. The price context might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I do. When this seems not to happen I'm looking for a faster fractal, pace change, and / or an annotation error. The price context might help.

 

That's very helpful thank you.

 

The attached clip, posted within this thread by Spydertrader, seems to be an exception.

i.e vol on the 3rd leg (2r) is lower than the vol on the 2nd leg (2b).

5aa7105ab0b11_nondomTraverse20090714.thumb.jpg.562042cf317ea0b6be23848afe9477c5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also on this chart, annotated by Spydertrader at the NY meeting.

 

The vol in the 2b leg (from 12:15) is lower than the vol on the 2r leg (from 11:05 to 12:15) in the long blue container from 10:40.

 

Any thoughts?

5aa7105ab70aa_NYmeetingchart.jpg.b206870118f7f59e32640f46f136407f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And also on this chart, annotated by Spydertrader at the NY meeting.

 

The vol in the 2b leg (from 12:15) is lower than the vol on the 2r leg (from 11:05 to 12:15) in the long blue container from 10:40.

 

Any thoughts?

 

When this seems not to happen I'm looking for a faster fractal, pace change, and / or an annotation error.

 

Perhaps that is what cnms2 meant ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I do. When this seems not to happen I'm looking for a faster fractal, pace change, and / or an annotation error. The price context might help.

That's very helpful thank you.

 

The attached clip, posted within this thread by Spydertrader, seems to be an exception.

i.e vol on the 3rd leg (2r) is lower than the vol on the 2nd leg (2b).

To illustrate my view, I added a few annotations to the snippet you posted. The last leg is a faster fractal traverse that became observable because of the lower pace. It shows the anticipated volume sequence.

5aa7105b43735_nondomTraverse20090714ff.jpg.5fdefcc77395183612dc3f5fc05fb196.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And also on this chart, annotated by Spydertrader at the NY meeting.

 

The vol in the 2b leg (from 12:15) is lower than the vol on the 2r leg (from 11:05 to 12:15) in the long blue container from 10:40.

 

Any thoughts?

When you review older charts you have to be aware of the historical context, and of what the author tried to illustrate using whatever tools available at that time. I've degapped your snippet and added a few notes.

 

During the trends' overlap either the old one or the new one manifest stronger. The price context may be helpful to clarify it.

5aa7105b4ad94_NYmeetingchartdegapped.jpg.2ace4c5d7584cae5f6c3624f214c41a9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To illustrate my view, I added a few annotations to the snippet you posted. The last leg is a faster fractal traverse that became observable because of the lower pace. It shows the anticipated volume sequence.

Thank you for your reply but I do not understand what you mean by "faster fractal traverse". I do not recall this term being used in this thread. I am trying to get to grips with how to tell what fractal each volume sequence corresponds to, given the 3 fractals as defined at the beginning of the thread. It would seem that if "pace" slows down then I can no longer anticipate greater volume in the 3rd leg of a sequence. So how can I tell if I am looking at the 3rd leg of my sequence or the 2nd leg of a faster sequence that is building my slower leg???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To illustrate my view, I added a few annotations to the snippet you posted. The last leg is a faster fractal traverse that became observable because of the lower pace. It shows the anticipated volume sequence.

 

FWIW, that chart has received a lot of attention. Both ways of annotating work. At that time the non dom gaussian was drawn in to the end of the lateral, where there was a BO and return to dominance. It was illustrating everything in the lateral being non-dominant on the traverse level. But the new sequence down does start at the point 3. Just though I'd throw that out for anyone wondering.

 

That's very helpful thank you.

 

The attached clip, posted within this thread by Spydertrader, seems to be an exception.

i.e vol on the 3rd leg (2r) is lower than the vol on the 2nd leg (2b).

 

Being a non-dominant 2-3 leg that might be expected. Though not always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Agreed since some of the new traders usually lose money in start and some loses more while chasing their lost money and eventually ends up blaming to their brokers part.
    • The crypto market are also in phase of maturing like the forex and other trading assets so we can do much more accurate analysis than before since early days it was purely a luck if the investments in crypto bears results because most of the coins or tokens never come to fruition. Some early birds were also able to make profits on these tokens or coins. e,g., like turtle coin starts with 1 satoshi and go up to 7 sathoshis, quite good rewards. another token lmgx now hovering at 10 started from 1, 
    • How's about other crypto exchanges? Are all they banned in your country or only Binance?
    • Be careful who you blame.   I can tell you one thing for sure.   Effective traders don’t blame others when things start to go wrong.   You can hang onto your tendency to play the victim, or the martyr… but if you want to achieve in trading, you have to be prepared to take responsibility.   People assign reasons to outcomes, whether based on internal or external factors.   When traders face losses, it's common for them to blame bad luck, poor advice, or other external factors, rather than reflecting on their own personal attributes like arrogance, fear, or greed.   This is a challenging lesson to grasp in your trading journey, but one that holds immense value.   This is called attribution theory. Taking responsibility for your actions is the key to improving your trading skills. Pause and ask yourself - What role did I play in my financial decisions?   After all, you were the one who listened to that source, and decided to act on that trade based on the rumour. Attributing results solely to external circumstances is what is known as having an ‘external locus of control’.   It's a concept coined by psychologist Julian Rotter in 1954. A trader with an external locus of control might say, "I made a profit because the markets are currently favourable."   Instead, strive to develop an "internal locus of control" and take ownership of your actions.   Assume that all trading results are within your realm of responsibility and actively seek ways to improve your own behaviour.   This is the fastest route to enhancing your trading abilities. A trader with an internal locus of control might proudly state, "My equity curve is rising because I am a disciplined trader who faithfully follows my trading plan." Author: Louise Bedford Source: https://www.tradinggame.com.au/
    • SELF IMPROVEMENT.   The whole self-help industry began when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936. Then came other classics like Think And Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Awaken the Giant Within by Tony Robbins toward the end of the century.   Today, teaching people how to improve themselves is a business. A pure ruthless business where some people sell utter bullshit.   There are broke Instagrammers and YouTubers with literally no solid background teaching men how to be attractive to women, how to begin a start-up, how to become successful — most of these guys speaking nothing more than hollow motivational words and cliche stuff. They waste your time. Some of these people who present themselves as hugely successful also give talks and write books.   There are so many books on financial advice, self-improvement, love, etc and some people actually try to read them. They are a waste of time, mostly.   When you start reading a dozen books on finance you realize that they all say the same stuff.   You are not going to live forever in the learning phase. Don't procrastinate by reading bull-shit or the same good knowledge in 10 books. What we ought to do is choose wisely.   Yes. A good book can change your life, given you do what it asks you to do.   All the books I have named up to now are worthy of reading. Tim Ferriss, Simon Sinek, Robert Greene — these guys are worthy of reading. These guys teach what others don't. Their books are unique and actually, come from relevant and successful people.   When Richard Branson writes a book about entrepreneurship, go read it. Every line in that book is said by one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time.   When a Chinese millionaire( he claims to be) Youtuber who releases a video titled “Why reading books keeps you broke” and a year later another one “My recommendation of books for grand success” you should be wise to tell him to jump from Victoria Falls.   These self-improvement gurus sell you delusions.   They say they have those little tricks that only they know that if you use, everything in your life will be perfect. Those little tricks. We are just “making of a to-do-list before sleeping” away from becoming the next Bill Gates.   There are no little tricks.   There is no success-mantra.   Self-improvement is a trap for 99% of the people. You can't do that unless you are very, very strong.   If you are looking for easy ways, you will only keep wasting your time forgetting that your time on this planet is limited, as alive humans that is.   Also, I feel that people who claim to read like a book a day or promote it are idiots. You retain nothing. When you do read a good book, you read slow, sometimes a whole paragraph, again and again, dwelling on it, trying to internalize its knowledge. You try to understand. You think. It takes time.   It's better to read a good book 10 times than 1000 stupid ones.   So be choosy. Read from the guys who actually know something, not some wannabe ‘influencers’.   Edit: Think And Grow Rich was written as a result of a project assigned to Napoleon Hill by Andrew Carnegie(the 2nd richest man in recent history). He was asked to study the most successful people on the planet and document which characteristics made them great. He did extensive work in studying hundreds of the most successful people of that time. The result was that little book.   Nowadays some people just study Instagram algorithms and think of themselves as a Dale Carnegie or Anthony Robbins. By Nupur Nishant, Quora Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/    
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.