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

Does such an event tell me that I have taped the area incorrectly?

 

While the event which you describe may indeed point to errors in annotation technique, in this specific example, no errors exist (with respect to the area under discussion).

 

What am I missing here?

 

Either, you do not see something which provides the FTT or you do not see a contextual difference which indicates the possibility an environment exists which has the ability to obscure that which you expect to see. In order to understand which of the two applies to you, look for the exact same set of circumstances (moving forward) and (when located) operate from the standpoint that you (both) had an FTT (which you do not see) and did not have an FTT. When the market delivers the next set of events (which must come next), return to this specific example and note the similarities and differences between then and the future example.

 

Once you complete this process you'll know which answer applies to you, but more importantly, you'll also know how to avoid a making the same error moving forward.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So was the fact that you couldn't construct an FTT with the 13:10 bar in effect telling you that it couldn't be the 'real' P3 and that you should anticipate a 'new' P2 somewhere down the road, which is in fact what heppened?

 

Yes, but it was not apparent to me until today. As I mentioned before, it can be a bit of a challenge for me to differentiate what something looks like vs what has actually taken place. Particularly when I've done it a certain way for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then what is the point of drawing the gaussian?? And how is one supposed to track the b2b2r2b sequence at L1?

 

The reason I don't post charts on this thread is because I formulate the Gaussian distributions in my head. The reason why I formulate the Gaussian distributions in my head has been elaborated on elsewhere and will not be repeated here. I am not and never have advised anyone to do what I do with respect to anything having to do with the theory or the method.

 

That said, when you look at a 'stick bar' chart taken in isolation there exists the possibility that when context is superimposed (like the bar OHLC, like the presence of other constructions, etc.), the answers to your questions will become apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi romanus,

 

I do not know whether I interpreted the quoted sentence the way it was supposed to be, so bear with me. But there seems to be a tacit implication that FTT represents the ONLY POSSIBLE end effect (i.e. completion) of a sequence on any fractal?

 

While the event which you describe may indeed point to errors in annotation technique, in this specific example, no errors exist (with respect to the area under discussion).

 

Either, you do not see something which provides the FTT or you do not see a contextual difference which indicates the possibility an environment exists which has the ability to obscure that which you expect to see. In order to understand which of the two applies to you, look for the exact same set of circumstances (moving forward) and (when located) operate from the standpoint that you (both) had an FTT (which you do not see) and did not have an FTT. When the market delivers the next set of events (which must come next), return to this specific example and note the similarities and differences between then and the future example.

 

Once you complete this process you'll know which answer applies to you, but more importantly, you'll also know how to avoid a making the same error moving forward.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Could be going off base here, but during the Romanus / PointOne discussion I kept coming back to Gucci's comment, as we could get a signal for change that doesn't appear to be an FTT, at least on the 5 min ES.

 

On the point 3 in question, the only way that couldn't be a point 3 is if it is an FTT of something else (say a down traverse for discussions sake) and a new point one of the up thing/traverse. Since my interpretation was there were no annotation errors in the "taping" of this area, there could be some bigger picture or larger fractal lines coming into play.

 

Right track?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either, you do not see something which provides the FTT or you do not see a contextual difference which indicates the possibility an environment exists which has the ability to obscure that which you expect to see.

 

After review, and comparing the 1310 bar from 08/05 to a few others, I notice that volume accelerates in this area in a fashion similar to what we used to call Peak Volume. Seems I recall that PV would frequently mask an FTT on a VE of the tape.

Edited by jbarnby
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a good explanation of PV relationship...aka JW:cool:

 

MB, how does microeconomic theory 101 mentioned in your attached article relate to JW or PV relationship? Hints?;) TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MB, how does microeconomic theory 101 mentioned in your attached article relate to JW or PV relationship? Hints?;) TIA
Let me try ...

 

up trend: demand in control (m), supply constant (w):

1->2 & 3->ftt: demand up => v&p up (A),

2->3 & ftt->rtl: demand down => v&p down (D)

 

down trend: supply in control (m), demand constant (w):

1->2 & 3->ftt: supply up => v up & p down (A),

2->3 & ftt->rtl: supply down => v down & p up (D)

5aa70f1841953_ds.png.eee7d764be03e640fe34271358b03ac7.png

Edited by cnms2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me try ...

 

up trend: demand in control (m), supply constant (w):

1->2 & 3->ftt: demand up => v&p up (A),

2->3 & ftt->rtl: demand down => v&p down (D)

 

down trend: supply in control (m), demand constant (w):

1->2 & 3->ftt: supply up => v up & p down (A),

2->3 & ftt->rtl: supply down => v down & p up (D)

Exactamundo............:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me try ...

 

up trend: demand in control (m), supply constant (w):

1->2 & 3->ftt: demand up => v&p up (A),

2->3 & ftt->rtl: demand down => v&p down (D)

 

down trend: supply in control (m), demand constant (w):

1->2 & 3->ftt: supply up => v up & p down (A),

2->3 & ftt->rtl: supply down => v down & p up (D)

 

cnms2, appreciate for the try. However, the dynamic auction-like (ie two-sided) of the market could not be explained by static supply and demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused on how to label the carry over gaussians from today. Highlighted is the area in question. If anyone interpreted this area clearly, please share.

 

- Monkman

5aa70f18508c3_8-21-2009question.jpg.c6d6a48323b006a3933b127ed5e2364e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused on how to label the carry over gaussians from today. Highlighted is the area in question. If anyone interpreted this area clearly, please share.

 

- Monkman

Try 14:45 (or even 14:35) to 8:55 (your chart times) as all decreasing red. End of day volume and opening bar volume needs to be taken into consideration. It can make the gaussians a bit harder to read. - E Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused on how to label the carry over gaussians from today. Highlighted is the area in question. If anyone interpreted this area clearly, please share.

 

- Monkman

 

Another approach would be to ask yourself whether there was evidence of completion of the uptape at EOD yesterday. If you thought yes then it would appear that you were wrong. Then the question becomes, why. If you saw no evidence for completion, then this AM was simply the making of yet another P2 and at EOD today you ask yourself the same question you did yesterday. Has there been completion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another approach would be to ask yourself whether there was evidence of completion of the uptape at EOD yesterday. If you thought yes then it would appear that you were wrong. Then the question becomes, why. If you saw no evidence for completion, then this AM was simply the making of yet another P2 and at EOD today you ask yourself the same question you did yesterday. Has there been completion?

 

 

The blue tape appears to be completed. In that tape from previous day starting at 13:50 central time you have B2R B2R (change) R2B R2B and then R2 from 15:10 to 15:15. The blue tape goes through all the gaussian formations called for completion, and then the downward tape forms (purple) at 14:14 previous day. For the purple tape to complete you think the sequence would go R2B R2B then R2 and continue to decreasing B. Instead you have continuation of the purple tape, 15:10 to 15:15 increasing Red, but no decreasing black. Now what I think, I did wrong was not zoom out and consider the last bar from yesterday 15:15 to be an FTT of the purple tape, and point 3 of an upward traverse. When zoomed out you can see the blue tape, and purple tape fractals have ended, and the completion of the B2R traverse has also completed forming a pt3. Then at the traverse level you get increasing black on the first bar of today, which is continuation of the B2R traverse.

 

Going to re label this so you can see what i'm saying in chart form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok here is the new chart

 

Our charts are quite different but I do see what you are saying. cnms2's 'slide' is a quick way to see that there was no completion but that is also evident without 'sliding'. FWIW, the uptape I am referring to began late in the afternoon of 8-19 and is still incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it make a difference?

 

I want to say no, but if the 8/21 bar is changed to increasing red, that would make it R2R marking a change in trend on the traverse level. So I would then on look for it to continue out a R2B cycle. In this example, we see a continuation of R2B from the previous day.

 

 

Another question:

 

if you have an R2R on the tape fractal level, does B2 R2 have to follow or can the cycle get cut short , and change before the cycle ends? Because i'm looking at the fastest fractal, the tape, looking for it to complete its volume cycle, but what if it does not complete and an FTT forms. And then a traverse builds in the other direction. Is that possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Another question:

 

if you have an R2R on the tape fractal level, does B2 R2 have to follow or can the cycle get cut short , and change before the cycle ends? Because i'm looking at the fastest fractal, the tape, looking for it to complete its volume cycle, but what if it does not complete and an FTT forms. And then a traverse builds in the other direction. Is that possible?

I think you have your answer in the 3rd paragraph of the 1st post of this thread. If you forget everything you knew before this thread started, and just read Spydertrader's posts here, you have everything you need to be profitable everyday, or at least to know what you did wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you have your answer in the 3rd paragraph of the 1st post of this thread. If you forget everything you knew before this thread started, and just read Spydertrader's posts here, you have everything you need to be profitable everyday, or at least to know what you did wrong.

 

True, the information you speak of is the core at a general level. But what I am trying to figure out is how to label the gaussians correctly at the tape fractal level, and then proceed to the traverse level. If I can do this correctly, I will be able to know what price looks like, and when Change , and continuation happens with the gaussian formations. At the traverse level it seems there is more interpretation with volume formations meaning if you can have three black up bars, a decreasing red bar, then another higher black bar. At the tape fractal it reads a different sequence then that of the traverse level is what I am seeing. Is this how the volume formations on the tape and traverse level are correctly viewed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, the information you speak of is the core at a general level. But ... At the tape fractal it reads a different sequence then that of the traverse level is what I am seeing. Is this how the volume formations on the tape and traverse level are correctly viewed?
My short answer: no.

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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/    
    • 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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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