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

Reading through the posts for that discussion:

 

ehorn thought it was a down Tape:

romanus thought it was a down Traverse:

cnms2 thought it was a down Channel:

 

Spyder infers (only by referring to what came before the posted chart)

that it was a down Tape. to the 15.35 bar, from which we get the last 2B up Tape

to complete an up Traverse.

 

I stand corrected if I've mis-understood those series of past posts.

 

Thx

 

PS: logic would suggest that one would need to have known how to correctly annotate the "thing" prior to the chart in question in order to have correctly annotated the chart in question etc..etc.. !

 

I haven't re-read thru those old posts but I also recall the same as filtertip. And fwiw, i would see it as a tape as well.

Edited by jbarnby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if it is a down tape or traverse, where exactly does it start then?

 

Heisenberg

 

It would seem the "thing" started on the 13.05 bar.

 

romanus thought it was a down Traverse.

ljyoung agreed

 

Originally Posted by ljyoung »

The reference to going with romanus was not pulled out of the ether. It was simply a statement of agreement with his logic. It had nothing to do with being right or wrong, good or bad, etc....

If the market shows his/my interpretation to be in error ...

 

 

however Spyder seems to say otherwise.

 

Think for a moment.

 

The market had already invalidated the interpretation. In addition, something must have indicated what to expect next, prior to, the market creating the posted snippet. - something which should have told you exactly what the market had to create.

 

(those are Spyders bold text)

 

What transpired the following day led those at the time

to conclude the snippet must have been a Tape.

At least that's my understanding of it all (and I stand corrected).

 

hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point for recent posts is not to say cnms2 is wrong or right.

Please, it's a joy to have anyone who knows more than me contribute to help us.

 

Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ?

 

This is to say that if we thought it was a Traverse we would be lookng at how to annotate it, some what differently then if it was a Tape.

 

Whilst I'm more clear as to what componants are required to build a Tape

I for one am still more than unclear as to how to know those components have been met.

Which might seem a contradiction.

 

For that reason I posted (and presume cnms2 did too), and with all the hope in the world, hope that those that do know will continue to post and help, as they have been.

 

Kind regards to all.

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point for recent posts is not to say cnms2 is wrong or right.

Please, it's a joy to have anyone who knows more than me contribute to help us.

 

Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ?

 

This is to say that if we thought it was a Traverse we would be lookng at how to annotate it, some what differently then if it was a Tape.

 

Whilst I'm more clear as to what componants are required to build a Tape

I for one am still more than unclear as to how to know those components have been met.

Which might seem a contradiction.

 

For that reason I posted (and presume cnms2 did too), and with all the hope in the world, hope that those that do know will continue to post and help, as they have been.

 

Kind regards to all.

 

Spyder made it very clear there is only ONE way to interpret the market. It is fantastic people are posting their charts and their interpretations. Keep it up.

 

What I am trying to say is be very careful what you take from other charts besides Spyders. I have been down that rabbit hole and wasted a lot of time learning wrong principles.

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ? ...
I eventually understood the point of controversy: is this a tape / traverse / channel? I believe this not to be the point of the drill, and that how you annotate the snippet doesn't depend on the answer to that question.

 

As we all know, the price-volume relationship as well at this method work on any time frame, so on any sufficiently large chart snippet we'll see at least three fractals named tape / traverse / channel, or L1 / L2 / L3, or whatever. On this annotation drill snippet we can see the three fractals, and even more. We should annotate the snippet in the same way independently of what time scale it uses: from the fastest observable fractal building up the slower ones.

 

I quickly annotated three fractals: gray / purple and blue / medium weight purple, to illustrate my point.

5aa7119c4de7a_2009-08-04on130109spydertraderpost334threefractals.thumb.jpg.e3e677ab33715bea5871504d16fa7411.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spyder made it very clear there is only ONE way to interpret the market. It is fantastic people are posting their charts and their interpretations. Keep it up.

 

What I am trying to say is be very careful what you take from other charts besides Spyders. I have been down that rabbit hole and wasted a lot of time learning wrong principles.

 

HTH

 

I tend to agree - only one correct way to view this imho. And the answer for me (in this example) comes clearly from the volume pane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehorn responded to Spydertrader's questions:

 

- What did the market form? Ehorn's answer, 'A Tape'.

- How do you know? Ehorn's answer, 'Volume'.

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-42.html#post72565

 

Did ehorn indicate that 'it' was a Down Tape? Clearly, it is NOT. Funny that people here do not like to clarify.

 

This was his original annotations that he posted. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12702d1249417144-price-volume-relationship-08042009.jpg

 

Then he showed part of his corrected annotation after Spydertrader's question. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12708d1249439006-price-volume-relationship-annotationdrill.jpg

 

And then, he posted his annotated chart for the next day to show that there was no jump on fractals. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12727d1249487430-price-volume-relationship-morningtrades.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to agree - only one correct way to view this imho. And the answer for me (in this example) comes clearly from the volume pane.

 

Would you explain more about "clearly from the volume pane" pls? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehorn responded to Spydertrader's questions:

 

- What did the market form? Ehorn's answer, 'A Tape'.

- How do you know? Ehorn's answer, 'Volume'.

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-42.html#post72565

 

Did ehorn indicate that 'it' was a Down Tape? Clearly, it is NOT. Funny that people here do not like to clarify.

 

This was his original annotations that he posted. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12702d1249417144-price-volume-relationship-08042009.jpg

 

Then he showed part of his corrected annotation after Spydertrader's question. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12708d1249439006-price-volume-relationship-annotationdrill.jpg

 

And then, he posted his annotated chart for the next day to show that there was no jump on fractals. - http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/attachments/34/12727d1249487430-price-volume-relationship-morningtrades.jpg

 

It was a nondominant down tape and what came next verified it as such. (btw ehorns gaussians are not correct) I had forgotten what came next but thanks for posting the next day's chart. I keep encouraging folks to reread this thread's discussion from the fall of 2010. The answer to what something is (or is not) resides in the price AND volume pane. I spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread, but later found that most everything one needs to be successful is right here within this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a nondominant down tape and what came next verified it as such. (btw ehorns gaussians are not correct) I had forgotten what came next but thanks for posting the next day's chart. I keep encouraging folks to reread this thread's discussion from the fall of 2010. The answer to what something is (or is not) resides in the price AND volume pane. I spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread, but later found that most everything one needs to be successful is right here within this discussion.

 

So you spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread to understand everything, what makes you think that, for the rest of us, it's going to be sufficient to just reread this thread from fall 2010? You say most is in that discussion, so not everything is there???

 

Something tells me this is close to mission impossible, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

 

Heisenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have for 8th_9th and 10th Jan 2013.

Done in real time.

 

If anyone can care to comment on if I am wrong (and if so where and why ?)

or correct, I'd be grateful.

 

Thx

 

PS 2nd chart is a better view of today 10th.

5aa7119cc7b24_ES03-13(5Min)8_9_10_01_2013.thumb.jpg.8c7544cbad7e0cee58911dbad2bb9c9c.jpg

5aa7119ccff37_ES03-13(5Min)8_9_10_01_2013.2.thumb.jpg.24cd22b94861b97771f681a1c9eb6362.jpg

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread to understand everything, what makes you think that, for the rest of us, it's going to be sufficient to just reread this thread from fall 2010? You say most is in that discussion, so not everything is there???

 

Something tells me this is close to mission impossible, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

 

Heisenberg

 

I've stated before (in a previous post) that I think it's very difficult to teach and/or learn this method from a forum such as this. So many things are open to misinterpretation. To my knowledge there haven't been a lot of long-term success stories from this thread or previous threads on another site. Many have adapted this method or "merged" it with other ways of viewing the market. And to be honest, spyder changed his own personal approach when he started this thread on TL. Prior to the start of this thread he annotated as many as five or six (or more) gaussian levels, but he never posted those charts in a public forum. However, in 2009, he adjusted his approach to only annotate 3 fractals at most....tape, traverse, & channel.

 

With that said, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from studying. Just know that it will likely take a long time before you "see" it. It definitely did with me and that was with a lot of support and help outside of this thread. I mentioned before that I privately mentor a small group of folks....but even with the day-to-day support and our frequent discussions, it takes some time for folks to 1. learn the method, and 2. learn to trust what they see and act upon it.

 

It's a process - and not an easy one. Hang in there!!

Edited by jbarnby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a nondominant down tape and what came next verified it as such. (btw ehorns gaussians are not correct) I had forgotten what came next but thanks for posting the next day's chart. I keep encouraging folks to reread this thread's discussion from the fall of 2010. The answer to what something is (or is not) resides in the price AND volume pane. I spent a long time working with spyder outside of this thread, but later found that most everything one needs to be successful is right here within this discussion.

Don't be shy. Please put up your annotations so we can learn how 'it' was a non-dominant Down Tape.

 

I don't follow ehorn's or anyone's annotations blindly. But as you can tell from his color scheme on the annotations on that day and the next day, 'it' was a non-dominant Down Traverse.

 

FYI, I did not follow and learn from any discussion in this TL thread in the past. I dislike rhetorical exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I have for 8th_9th and 10th Jan 2013.

Done in real time.

 

If anyone can care to comment on if I am wrong (and if so where and why ?)

or correct, I'd be grateful.

 

Thx

 

PS 2nd chart is a better view of today 10th.

 

Filtertip i may be wrong but compared to my charts looks like your missing the first hour of 5m bars.hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be shy. Please put up your annotations so we can learn how 'it' was a non-dominant Down Tape.

 

I don't follow ehorn's or anyone's annotations blindly. But as you can tell from his color scheme on the annotations on that day and the next day, 'it' was a non-dominant Down Traverse.

 

FYI, I did not follow and learn from any discussion in this TL thread in the past. I dislike rhetorical exchanges.

 

I do follow ehorns annotations, but as I stated, they are not correct. And to be honest, had I commented or posted my chart at that time in 2009, I probably would have annotated similarly to ehorn. He and I used to work together in a daily chat group. But there were many things I did not understand at that time. The volume sequences, necessary order of events, and combination of trendlines prevent this from being a traverse.

 

But in any case, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. All the best to you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filtertip i may be wrong but compared to my charts looks like your missing the first hour of 5m bars.hth

 

patrader.

 

How odd..thankyou for noticing.

so far, having refreshed data etc..it's still staying the same..

 

At the time I was confused by the 10.55 to 11.40 period on volume..but didn't notice the time....so this may explain it..

but as I say I'm so far unable to get the missing data..

 

thx again

 

btw..anyones charts and annotations to compare with would be appreciated.

 

PS: Ok got the missing data ...what to do with the area in the black square ?

Help ?

5aa7119ce9e25_ES03-13(5Min)8_9_10_01_2013.3.thumb.jpg.44d9d3f870483de9f15e2ad3b4c2c7eb.jpg

Edited by FilterTip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jbarnby, thanks for your comments and posts.In the attached chart from post #3708 the 12:05 est bar (see lite blue arrow pointing to this bar) appears to be the lateral formation kill bar.Two bars out of lateral formation does kill a lateral formation but the exception is when the second bar out forms a flaw (internal formation).I believe that is a fbp(internal formation) but i did notice the second bar is increasing black volume.Hmm.Could you enlighten me as to what killed that lateral formation and am i reading that correct that the lateral formation was killed on that bar.Tia

5aa7119d0caec_01-02-13jbarnbylatkillbar.thumb.PNG.3006b13fdc1dc9e6cacfe0891d91cf01.PNG

Edited by patrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jbarnby, thanks for your comments and posts.In the attached chart from post #3708 the 12:05 est bar (see lite blue arrow pointing to this bar) appears to be the lateral formation kill bar.Two bars out of lateral formation does kill a lateral formation but the exception is when the second bar out forms a flaw (internal formation).I believe that is a fbp(internal formation) but i did notice the second bar is increasing black volume.Hmm.Could you enlighten me as to what killed that lateral formation and am i reading that correct that the lateral formation was killed on that bar.Tia

 

I dont remember who posted it, it was how Jack treats 2 bar (It is in this thread) If the second bar of an internal has increasing volume you treat them as separate bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it :)

 

"All inside formations have the same rules. The first bar is always processed. the second or sunsequence bar(s) is NOT processed if smaller in volume than the first. If NOT, then it is processed.

 

For out side bars, they count as two bars in a trends sequence. THe first value is done as usual. The second value is simple: it is the NEXT value in the trend sequence."

 

Forums - The bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do follow ehorns annotations, but as I stated, they are not correct. And to be honest, had I commented or posted my chart at that time in 2009, I probably would have annotated similarly to ehorn. He and I used to work together in a daily chat group. But there were many things I did not understand at that time. The volume sequences, necessary order of events, and combination of trendlines prevent this from being a traverse.

 

But in any case, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree. All the best to you!!

 

No problem. I do follow why 'it' would look like a Down Tape. I should check how the day before would be annotated. But I am lazy and am very strong minded about my inferences and logic. Also, I treat Traverses casually as contextual elements, good to be correct but not threatening my beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. Volume sequences.

 

I just wanted to point out, that I appreciate your help and I see that many others do as well. When we spoke a couple months ago, it sounded like you were on the fence about getting involved. Many others had expressed the same view as well. Over the past couple of months things have changed, and I genuinely believe that many of us have started to improve.

 

I just wanted to challenge you publicly to not hold back. Share with us detailed answers with graphical explanations. Help provide us with information that is not a replay of the same old record. We may not be your family or good friends, but we are still a community of members that have been working hard together to achieve a common goal.

 

To everyone: Try to avoid repetitive generalities that are undermining and unhelpful. If you are explaining a topic the best you can, then no hurt in that.

 

If you were willing to go into detail on how you build your fractals that would be very helpful. Specifically, how you interpret the volume pace levels in determining the length of the cycle.

 

When your looking for a shift or change (start of B2B or R2R), and your looking to make an entry, what do you specifically look for to confirm that you are seeing Change, and not a continuation of the last leg of the prior trend?

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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/    
    • there is no avoiding loses to be honest, its just how the market is. you win some and hopefully more, but u do lose some. 
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
    • $CSCO Cisco Systems stock, nice top of range breakout, from Stocks to Watch at https://stockconsultant.com/?CSCOSEPN Septerna stock watch for a bottom breakout, good upside price gap
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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