The Price / Volume Relationship

[Heisenberg 10]

Hello frenchfry.

 

My understanding is that volume promotes a container by virtue of having

successively higher peaks within that container.

 

hth

 

Only the peaks? The troughs don't matter here in this case?

 

thanks,

H.

[cnms2 10]

So I ask a question about PA, and I get answers about other annotation possibilities? What use does that serve?

I know it's a traverse (from spyder earlier in the thread), and I want to know why it is one, not 20 different ways to annotate a chart.

 

H.

It seems you're operating under false assumptions on several levels: this method, what you deserve, how to ask for something you need. Being polite never hurts.

[Heisenberg 10]

It seems you're operating under false assumptions on several levels: this method, what you deserve, how to ask for something you need. Being polite never hurts.

 

I deserve the same as anyone here in the forum: nothing.

 

I wasn't impolite, I just told the truth.

 

False assumptions? Please....

 

H.

[FilterTip 10]

Only the peaks? The troughs don't matter here in this case?

 

thanks,

H.

 

I'd say that it's not that the troughs don't matter.

PA = successive higher troughs and successive higher peaks.

 

Looking at the Oct 2010 Channel Drill:

The down BBT from 14.00 to 15.05 (14th Oct) has PA in it's 2r (15.00/15.05)

promoting the BBT to a Tape, without the usual requirments for a Tape,

but there is only the trough at 14.55 and it's a lower trough.

 

Red dominance went straight to increasing red,

however the volume in this 2r was greater than the containers r2r volume,

and indeed greater than any individual volume bar in the whole container from 14.00.

 

Looking at the up non dom Traverse from 15.05 (14th Oct)

If there was no PA we only have a BBT 1 by 15.40.

But being a successive higher peak at 15.40 we might start to consider PA

promoting this BBT 1 to a Tape without seeing the usual requirements for a Tape.

A higher trough at 15.45 and a successive higher peak at 16.00/05

allows us to view this as further PA

which becomes the 2B of a promoted Traverse without seeing

(due to PA) the non dom Tape in a way we would other wise expect.

 

 

So I don't see it as a matter of waiting or having to have more than one trough in the 2X.

Not with standing that we had already had an X2X (trough to peak) to which we can relate

the PA.

 

If we do get more than one trough to successive peak in 2X, even if the trough is a lower trough,

then perhaps at the very least, we would consider the possibility of PA,

especially considering other factors such as the rate of PA if on a single or few bars

and successive higher peaks throughout the container.

 

Such variables are not hard and fast "rules" perhaps, but rather a sense of logic

in terms of what is being built.(?)

 

hth

Edited April 30, 2013 by FilterTip

[Heisenberg 10]

I'd say that it's not that the troughs don't matter.

If we do get more than one trough to successive peak in 2X, even if the trough is a lower trough,

then perhaps at the very least, we would consider the possibility of PA,

especially considering other factors such as the rate of PA if on a single or few bars

and successive higher peaks throughout the container.

 

Such variables are not hard and fast "rules" perhaps, but rather a sense of logic

in terms of what is being built.(?)

 

hth

 

I don't know about this one, I remember spyder saying that everything boils down to a binary choice.

 

H.

[Heisenberg 10]

On the attached annotated chart from jb, we see a down traverse. As we all know a traverse is built with 3 tapes. This implies that pt1 to pt2 is a tape, as well as pt2 to pt3 is a tape.

 

Now, the question is, how comes that the first tape has about 30 bars (and is built from several faster fractals), and the second only 2 (not built from faster fractals) and are at the same time both tapes?

I'm not asking for the solution, but a little push in the right direction would be awesome.

 

H.

[NYCMB 10]

There are definitions for Laterals.

Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals.

Laterals we are permitted to annotate through and

those we are not permitted to annotate through.

hth

 

Hi Filter Tip,

 

My questions are regarding to the quotes above.

 

S...Filter Tip: There are definitions for Laterals.

Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals.

 

Q...NYCMB: What are definitions for Laterals?

What is Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals respectively based on your conclusion of research? Could you provide rules and chart examples for both?

 

 

S...Filter Tip: Laterals we are permitted to annotate through and

those we are not permitted to annotate through.

 

Q...NYCMB: Could you provide rules and chart examples for both? TIA

[FilterTip 10]

Hi Filter Tip,

 

My questions are regarding to the quotes above.

 

S...Filter Tip: There are definitions for Laterals.

Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals.

 

Q...NYCMB: What are definitions for Laterals?

What is Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals respectively based on your conclusion of research? Could you provide rules and chart examples for both?

 

 

S...Filter Tip: Laterals we are permitted to annotate through and

those we are not permitted to annotate through.

 

Q...NYCMB: Could you provide rules and chart examples for both? TIA

 

Hello NYCMB

 

Spyder started the Lateral drill at post # 1128

Ptunic gave a definition for Sym Confirmed Laterals in post # 1215

Several members (see your post # 1301) discussed things through to

Spyder concluding in post # 1310.

 

If it helps here is me understanding:

 

Laterals:

 

Non-Confirming Sym Lateral (Non-CSL):

Laterals starting (first 2 bars ) with FTP and FBP and EH:

= we do not annotate through.

Meaning we have annotated to the first bar as we do not yet know it is a lateral.

By the close of 3nd bar and if a Non-CSL then we stop annotating.

We then treat the lateral as a leg of the container we come into the lateral with.

 

In other words we may fan our RTL around the Lateral,

unless we have completed something at the first bar of a Non-CSL.

Ie:

If we have finished a BBT (X2X or x2x2y2x etc..) with a p1/p2p3 and ftt,

at the first bar of a Non-CSL then we can view the lateral

as a non dom container (BBT) in of itself.

 

Confirming Sym Lateral (CSL):

A lateral starting with a sym and when confirmed by a bar that touches the upper and or lower lateral boundary

but does not pierce the boundaries prior to this confirming bar, can then be annotated through.

 

Regardless of how many bars it takes for this confirming bar to appear (if it appears).

This will imply a hindsight effect as we need the confirming bar to then look back

and see if/where to annotate through, if we chose to do so.

 

Hence a CSL might not be fanned around as a seq can or may end within the lateral

by virtue of us being able to annotate through it.

 

By "annotating through" is meant that we can draw trend lines to and from the bars within this type of Lateral.

in other words we can use the bars within this lateral.

In effect it is as if the lateral was not a lateral.

However, we maintain that it is in the sense that it needs to be ended.

 

 

Dominant lateral:

= a lateral (of any kind) who's first bar is in the same direction of the dominant cycle.

 

ie: in a B2B2R2B a lateral appearing in any leg would be dominant if the first bar of

the lateral was an up bar (up bar is dominant in up (B2B2R2B) cycle).

Up bar = close above it's open.

 

We may complete dominance within a dominant lateral.

(ie: without the lateral being ended).

 

Non-Dom Lateral:

= a lateral (of any kind) who's first bar is in the opposite direction of the dominant cycle.

 

ie: in a B2B2R2B a lateral appearing in any leg would be non- dominant if the first bar of

the lateral was a down bar (down bar is non- dominant in up (B2B2R2B) cycle).

Down bar = close below it's open.

 

We may not complete dominance within a non-dominant lateral.

 

Both Dominant and Non-Dominant Laterals are in respect to the first bar of the laterals close and not volume.

 

 

Conditions that End a Lateral:

 

1. 2 bar closes outside that in of themselves do not create a formation.

2. OB (regardless of the bars close, on increasing volume over the previous bar) that pierces upper and /or lower boundary on increasing volume.

3. Up IBGS on increasing volume (over the previous bar) that pierces the lower boundary.

4. Down IBGs (on increasing volume over the previous bar) that pierces the upper boundary.

5. A close outside the laterel that would be a 3rd close outside but being a bar

subsequent to point 1 above.

(ie: 2 bar closes outside that do form a formation in of themsleves and hence would not end the lateral

but then a subsequent (3rd) close outside, after the formation, would end the lateral).

 

hth

(and welcome any additions and or corrections if need be)

[FilterTip 10]

Hi FT.

 

Why do you mention minimum of three BBT's in a Tape? What causes more BBT's in a Tape? Is it VE? But I do see a Tape ends right on VE bar. Could you define VE that produces an additional pair of BBT's and that does not. If VE. do you modify the slope of the RTL of the Tape? Sometimes I wonder what to do with the extension of old RTL which seems to impact future price movements. [Fill in your questions.]

 

Your clarification will help a lot for me as well as those who are still struggling. Anyone is invited to contribute. Thanks from my heart.

 

Hello Scooty

 

This is my understanding of how to deal with VE's for both a BBT and a Tape,

so hope it helps.

(re: steepeing of an rtl;

if we steepen (accelerate) an rtl, then we are leaving behind the preivous rtl.

It is not in play anymore)

 

VE:

 

We separate VE's into 2 types:

 

1. "nitz" (not in the zone)

 

Not in the zone =

a. a bar that Ve's an ltl and then closes within (not beyond) the ltl that it has ve'd

whether on inc and or dec volume. (over the previous bar)

 

b. a bar that Ve's an ltl and then closes beyond the ltl that it has ve'd

on dec volume. (over the previous bar)

 

2. "itz" (in the zone)

 

In The Zone =

a. a bar that Ve's an ltl and closes outside (beyond) the ltl it has Ve'd on increasing volume

(over the previous bar)

 

Ve means we are given "permission" to accelerate (steepen) our rtl in order to achieve an FTT.

 

VE BBT:

 

ITZ:

RTL

Permission to accelerate (steepen) BBT rtl, at the close of the Ve bar,

to the VE bar.

ITZ:

LTL

a. clone accelerated (steepened) rtl and place at low/high of one bar prior to VE bar if allowed via 10 x 2 bar cases.

b. if not a. then place ltl at low/high of a bar prior to ve bar,

providing this new p2 (which is where the ltl is being placed) is not prior to p1.

p1 being the start of our new steepened rtl.

c. if a. or b would ve in of itself then clone accelerated rtl and place at low/high of VE bar.

 

NITZ:

RTL

Permission to accelerate (steepen) BBT rtl, at the close of the bar after the VE bar,

to the 1st available dominant bar.

(Sometimes this is to the bar after the ve bar or via some form of non dom movement (x number of bars and or lateral etc).

in order to achieve an ftt of our (pushed out as below) BBT ltl.

 

NITZ:

LTL

Clone existing BBT ltl and push out to low/high of VE bar.

 

If we then VE ITZ the pushed out ltl then treat accordingly, as per a VE ITZ.

 

VE Tape:

 

ITZ:

RTL

Our Tape will be re- built via 3 (new) BBT's.

New Tape P1 at previous Tape P3. (and start of new BBT 1)

New Tape P2 at end of (new) BBT 1

Accelerate (steepen) Tape RTL to new P3 (start of new BBT 3).

ITZ:

LTL

a. clone accelerated (steepened) RTL and place at low/high of bar that FTT's BBT 1.

(starts new BBT 2)

 

 

 

NITZ:

RTL

Permission to accelerate (steepen) Tape RTL, at the close of the bar after the VE bar,

to the 1st available dominant bar.

(Sometimes this is to the bar after the ve bar or via some form of non dom movement (x number of bars and or lateral etc).

in order to achieve an FTT of our (pushed out as below) Tape LTL.

 

NITZ:

LTL

Clone existing Tape LTL and push out to low/high of VE bar.

 

If we then VE ITZ the pushed out LTL treat accordingly as per a VE ITZ.

 

hth

(and welcome any additions and or corrections if needed)

Edited May 2, 2013 by FilterTip

[Heisenberg 10]

One of my favorite exercises in this entire thread. In fact, I love this channel drill so much that I use it as part of the training for each of my students. There's a TON of information within this drill, and it may take you a long time to piece it all together, but it has a bit of everything that one uses in their daily decision making process...sub fractals, containers, ve's, pace accelerations, unobservable events, etc...this list goes on! If you have a problem maintaining fractal integrity, this drill will be a challenge.

 

I don't have time to lead a discussion on this exercise, but I thought it worthwhile for some of you to revisit this drill, and perhaps work through it together.

 

Spyder tells us that a new channel begins at 1415 on 10/13/10. The channel ends at 1030 on 10/15/10.

 

Good luck!

 

Can anyone post this chart without annotations? (preferably from Trade Navigator)

 

H.

[NYCMB 10]

Can anyone post this chart without annotations? (preferably from Trade Navigator)

 

H.

 

Hi Heisenberg,

 

Two charts for you, they are from NinjaTrader. The 3-day chart is 10-minute and degapped.

[frenchfry 10]

Sure. Looking at a chart after the fact and having all the price and volume bars available from "now" until the "future" you could make everything fit.

 

But if you break it up into segments without having the bars on the right side available yet. Let's start with with the claim that a new channel starts 14.15 on October 13th.

 

1. How would you know at 14.15, 14.30, 15.10, whenever, that a NEW CHANNEL is starting?

 

2. Where is the FTT of the previous channel?

 

3. What do we "know" about volume at a Point 1, 2, 3 and FTT of a channel?

 

4. What do we know about a volume P1, T1, P2, T2, P3?

 

5. Where do you see those things in the previous channel leading us into the new channel at 14.15?

 

6. And at which time do you start to see each component happening in the new channel?

 

7. Would you come to different conclusions doing it real time because you follow the "Channel drawing guidelines" and the "Pattern"?

 

7. What happened at the end of the day on the 14th? How would you have known that the current channel of that day didn't finish already at that point?

 

8.How would you have known that what looked like the beginning of a new channel at the end of the day on October 15th is in fact not a complete channel?

 

9. How would you know at 10.30 on October 15th that the previous channel finally ended? Especially if you had to fan/re-adjust the channel because of what happened at the end of the day on the 14th?

 

Good luck.

Edited May 8, 2013 by frenchfry

[Heisenberg 10]

Sure. Looking at a chart after the fact and having all the price and volume bars available from "now" until the "future" you could make everything fit.

 

But if you break it up into segments without having the bars on the right side available yet. Let's start with with the claim that a new channel starts 14.15 on October 13th.

 

1. How would you know at 14.15, 14.30, 15.10, whenever, that a NEW CHANNEL is starting?

 

2. Where is the FTT of the previous channel?

 

3. What do we "know" about volume at a Point 1, 2, 3 and FTT of a channel?

 

4. What do we know about a volume P1, T1, P2, T2, P3?

 

5. Where do you see those things in the previous channel leading us into the new channel at 14.15?

 

6. And at which time do you start to see each component happening in the new channel?

 

7. Would you come to different conclusions doing it real time because you follow the "Channel drawing guidelines" and the "Pattern"?

 

7. What happened at the end of the day on the 14th? How would you have known that the current channel of that day didn't finish already at that point?

 

8.How would you have known that what looked like the beginning of a new channel at the end of the day on October 15th is in fact not a complete channel?

 

9. How would you know at 10.30 on October 15th that the previous channel finally ended? Especially if you had to fan/re-adjust the channel because of what happened at the end of the day on the 14th?

 

Good luck.

 

Spyder said this would be the best way of self-learning, by starting from something known. (and work your way backwards trough it)

 

1. One should know this by knowing that every previous channel/traverse/tape/... had been completed at this point in time.

 

2. At 14.15, also being point 1 of the new channel/traverse/tape/sub tapes/....

 

3. I do not know the answer on this one yet.

 

4. See answer 3. I suspect this has to do with how peaks and troughs behave?

 

5. Let's just say you lost me already at 3.

This also implies it is usesless (for me) to look further at this point, because I'm missing too much to move things forward.

 

In other words: something happened on the end of the 14th that made the channel fanning,

I have always assumed that only the internals (yellows) and non dominant laterals created fanning. Perhaps I should replace "non dominant lateral" by "non dominant faster fractal"?

 

This also implies that we did have a complete channel on the 14th, but that the channel fanning event made the channel bigger. (and reordered everything inside, changing the fractals)

 

H.

[frenchfry 10]

Sorry! Didn't want to confuse you.

 

Just take 14.15 as your Point 1. Next, show how your price containers and volume peaks and throughs move to and create a Point 2 of the channel. Next, show the next segment that moves to Point 3, etc. Pretend you are doing it in real time. You don't see anything else yet on the right side.

[NYCMB 10]

The attached chart is of May 21st 2010.

See Spyders post # 1835.

I've added some notes.

 

It might hopefully help to explain, in this example, how volume relates to price

for BBT 2 in so far as BBT 1 being Complex.

And so help with knowing when and if we have a Tape rather than a Traverse etc..

 

hth

 

Hi Filter Tip,

 

I have question regarding the definition of IBGS.

 

9:45 bar (close of, bar 3, May21, 2010, Open: 1064.25, Close: 1064.00. Do you consider bar3 an IBGS? If Yes, then bar3 sets a Complex BBT. If No, then bar 4 which is the second bar of EH (Hitch) formation sets a CompleX BBT.

 

Could you comment? TIA

[FilterTip 10]

Hi Filter Tip,

 

I have question regarding the definition of IBGS.

 

9:45 bar (close of, bar 3, May21, 2010, Open: 1064.25, Close: 1064.00.

 

Do you consider bar3 an IBGS?

Yes

If Yes, then bar3 sets a Complex BBT.

Yes

If No, then bar 4 which is the second bar of EH (Hitch) formation sets a CompleX BBT.

Yes

 

................................

[cnms2 10]

Hi Filter Tip,

 

I have question regarding the definition of IBGS.

 

9:45 bar (close of, bar 3, May21, 2010, Open: 1064.25, Close: 1064.00. Do you consider bar3 an IBGS? If Yes, then bar3 sets a Complex BBT. If No, then bar 4 which is the second bar of EH (Hitch) formation sets a Complex BBT.

 

Could you comment? TIA

The bar 2 ve seems more important to me.

[wilddog 10]

The bar 2 ve seems more important to me.

 

 

ROTFLOL!! Thank you for that.

[cnms2 10]

The bar 2 ve seems more important to me.

Not for clowns. .

[wilddog 10]

Not for clowns. .

 

 

 

Hmm, it is interesting bar 3 is a red bar.

 

 

It looks like the circus is in town.

[Heisenberg 10]

I thought this might be a fun sequence to bring up for discussion. I have it on "good authority" that this snippet represents a Traverse. For context, this is a non-dominant traverse of a down channel. We have a complete skinny cycle up to 1105, then a down tape followed by an up tape. Would you have seen it as such? Why or why not?

 

I've annotated the attached traverse as I think how it should/could be annotated correctly. It was posted and heavily discussed a while ago, but I believe there are a few things that can be learned from this chart.

 

The last up tape is imho hidden by the fact that we have an outside bar. This bar contains decreasing red as well as increasing black volume. That is why the first part is non dom decreasing red, and the last part of it can be seen as a dominant increasing bar.

 

Your comments are welcome.

 

H.

[Heisenberg 10]

The bar 2 ve seems more important to me.

 

Are you sure that's a ve? Shouldn't the ltl start on bar 2 in this case?

[Heisenberg 10]

One of my favorite exercises in this entire thread. In fact, I love this channel drill so much that I use it as part of the training for each of my students. There's a TON of information within this drill, and it may take you a long time to piece it all together, but it has a bit of everything that one uses in their daily decision making process...sub fractals, containers, ve's, pace accelerations, unobservable events, etc...this list goes on! If you have a problem maintaining fractal integrity, this drill will be a challenge.

 

I don't have time to lead a discussion on this exercise, but I thought it worthwhile for some of you to revisit this drill, and perhaps work through it together.

 

Spyder tells us that a new channel begins at 1415 on 10/13/10. The channel ends at 1030 on 10/15/10.

 

Good luck!

 

Nobody has this chart (5 min from Trade Navigator) ?

 

H.

[Heisenberg 10]

8.How would you have known that what looked like the beginning of a new channel at the end of the day on October 15th is in fact not a complete channel?

 

Good luck.

 

Let me make an educated guess: the answer is volume related?

 

H.

[cnms2 10]

Sure. Looking at a chart after the fact and having all the price and volume bars available from "now" until the "future" you could make everything fit.

 

But if you break it up into segments without having the bars on the right side available yet

 

...

 

Good luck.

You too! .