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

Hey romanus,

 

If 14:20 was a lateral, what type would it be? How does it change the context?

It would have been a 'Dominant Lateral' which is created by price moving from p2 to p3 of something.

1420 bar can't be a Point 2 of the traverse which begins at 1400 for reasons previously discussed. And If 14:20 was a lateral then 1435 would have been a part of that lateral and not a Point 2 of the Traverse. And 1605 would not have been a Point 2 of the accelerated traverse, but instead of the faster fractal tape. And 1005 (10/22) would not have been the end of the Traverse sequence but instead of the faster fractal tape. Of course, this is just my opinion, meaning that I have developed a tendency to hallucinate things in a certain way, which may or may not be the correct way.:2c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would have been a 'Dominant Lateral' which is created by price moving from p2 to p3 of something.

 

Thanks for the reply...

 

Does the market confirm this? Price moving from pt2-pt3 of something sounds like Non-Dominant movement to me... Why would we call this lateral "Dominant"?

 

More generally, how does one determine the 'type' of lateral the market is building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It seems to me that the existence or non-existence of the lateral beginning with 14:20 bar (10/21) changes the context.
Two possibilities, using rs5's chart: with and without a 1420 lateral.

5aa70f4289af5_rs5croptwice.thumb.jpg.569d680ab2f341294f5eb189d0087bc6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the reply...

 

Does the market confirm this? Price moving from pt2-pt3 of something sounds like Non-Dominant movement to me... Why would we call this lateral "Dominant"?

 

More generally, how does one determine the 'type' of lateral the market is building?

 

While attempting to learn from the market, I operate under the assumption that the lateral that moves the price from p2 to p3 is different from the lateral that moves the price from p3 to the end of the sequence. Calling one 'Dominant' and the other 'Non-dominant' seems like a convenient way to label different scenarios.

 

...

More generally, how does one determine the 'type' of lateral the market is building?

Personally, I attempt to differentiate them on the basis of where in the sequence the lateral begins. In other words, I seem to hallucinate the differences between arriving at p3 and then beginning to move laterally towards the end of the (tape, traverse) sequence vs. arriving at p2 and then beginning to move laterally towards p3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey romanus,

 

If 14:20 was a lateral, what type would it be? How does it change the context?

Apologies for the confusion. I just realized that 1435 is inside the previous traverse - which would make it irrelevant whether or not there was a lateral at 1420. All that of course is based on the assumption that there was in fact a previous traverse (which means that the annotations in the attached have to be corrected to reflect that). The assumption that there was a previous traverse is unfortunately not based on facts but rather my inability to hallucinate the alternative annotations.:rofl:

5aa70f42a442b_10_22_2009(5Min).thumb.png.362efb4fc72a7be71ca9624573e52fd6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I was suggesting that you posted a snippet with your P&V annotations, and your reasoning for starting and ending each lateral, to see what you're seeing. ...
I end the laterals when the price exits or /and certain types of OB & IBGS. I start them after pennants or EH.

5aa70f43257ad_10_23_2009(5Min).thumb.jpg.49c4cbd85c14022f1398f0b7b9524b2d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two possibilities, using rs5's chart: with and without a 1420 lateral.

 

Thank you for posting.

 

Your magenta arrows shows very nicely how the volume first contracts at SYM and then red volume is increasing with downmove of the price from 13:00 to 13:20 indicating bias to the down side. (13:00 is not bar 1 of a lateral, but the first bar of a series of flaws that follows it)

 

13:20 is bar one of the first lateral. And as is expected in laterals the volume becomes smaller across the duration of the lateral. There is a slight surge in volume (slightly larger red volume bar than previous volume bar) as the market tries to push outside of the lateral at 13:35 testing the lower boundary of bar 1 of lateral 1 (13:20 bar), however not power enough to start a directional move and it falls back into another lateral (2), continuing the lateral 1. Encouraged by the lack of power to the downside, market makes a surge to the upside at 13:50 (slightly larger black volume than previous volume bar) testing the top of bar 1 of lateral 1. The next volume bar is smaller even as the high of the previous price bar is tested. So still not powerful enough for a directional move and it falls into another lateral, continuing the previous two overlapping laterals. In both cases, the slight surges of volume at 13:35 and 13:50 are progressively smaller volume bars than the volume bar at 13:20, and volume is decreasing in height indicating that the laterals 2 and 3 are still part of lateral 1. The three overlapping laterals eventually come to a close after the second close outside of the boundaries of of all three bar 1s.

 

What I am not sure of is whether 13:50 is the first close of the laterals as it closed outside of bar 1 of lateral 1, or whether the count starts again after all three overlapping laterals are accounted for. As I was confused, I left all of it on there (lol - location of 1st close, plus kept laterals colors until 2nd closed bar outside all 3 overlapping bar 1s)

 

Any clarification welcomed.

5aa70f436874a_rs5croptwice.thumb.jpg.759ed1223babe22494f8a5fad683b4e3.jpg

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... What I am not sure of is whether 13:50 is the first close of the laterals as it closed outside of bar 1 of lateral 1, or whether the count starts again after all three overlapping laterals are accounted for. As I was confused, I left all of it on there (lol - location of 1st close, plus kept laterals colors until 2nd closed bar outside all 3 overlapping bar 1s)

 

Any clarification welcomed.

I applied my interpretation of Spydertrader's posts #41

 

After completing the 'tape drawing' drill, and after one begins to 'merge' the individual 'two bar' tapes into longer trends which continue the current 'tape fractal,' stop annotating 'tapes' within Lateral Formations. Begin to note the significant shift in Pace which develops inside every Lateral Formation. Note as well the changes which develop as Price moves from inside a Lateral Formation to an area where the Lateral Formation ends.

 

and #110

 

The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw.' In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fractals ... Cycles ... Goats.

 

The market signals its intention long time before your best trading point for your targeted time frame. It's up to you to do it right, early or late ... :)

5aa70f475cc3a_2009-10-27fractals.thumb.png.8935ad3f153c20f3b048c482457826d4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To paraphrase the infamous MC commercial:

 

incorrectly identifying Point Two of the Traverse:

 

9.9 on The '1-10 Pain Scale'

 

subsequently assuming that the sequence which ended on the 1st bar was a Traverse:

 

5.9 on The '1-10 Pain Scale'

 

seeing the Price cross the 'CP4 green line of no return' by one tick before dropping 10 pts:

 

PRICELESS

 

:rofl:

5aa70f47631dc_10_27_2009(5Min).thumb.png.451f029ab8230a4613eba941e72f4a67.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having a problem reconciling two of the images that Spyder posted near the beginning of the thread. One image shows a Traverse, with Tapes and Channel labeled. The second image is the volume pane fractals. I have combined the images for attachment.

 

For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse. I have spent the last week or so on just this subject. Not just on this image alone, but comparing to other days of my own charts.

 

From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes. Also, that each segment of a Channel will have the full sequence representing a Traverse. This is what I understand a fractal to be, each part being composed of a smaller complete part. If this understanding is off the mark, please tell me I am digging in the wrong hole.

 

So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence.

 

I am hoping someone can disabuse me of my understanding of the volume fractals, or help me see how those fractals show up in the Tapes of the attached Traverse.

 

Thanks for any help :)

TraverseFractal.thumb.PNG.b07a8599239071cfc799b53398b89686.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the life of me, I can not see the Tape volume fractals on this Traverse. I have spent the last week or so on just this subject. Not just on this image alone, but comparing to other days of my own charts.

It's possible that the tape volume sequence isn't visible on the 5m ES for these particular tapes. See the link below.

 

From the volume fractals image I see that each segment of a Traverse should have a full B2B2R2B or R2R2B2R representing the Tapes. Also, that each segment of a Channel will have the full sequence representing a Traverse. This is what I understand a fractal to be, each part being composed of a smaller complete part. If this understanding is off the mark, please tell me I am digging in the wrong hole.
Yes, for a down traverse a R2R tape, 2B tape, and 2R tape.

 

So, with my understanding of the volume fractals this is what I get on the attached Traverse. First Tape is Dec Red, Dec Black, Inc Red, which does not fit R2R2B2R. The other two Tapes are similar in that they seem to be missing one or more parts of the volume fractal sequence.
I don't see where dec red tape goes to a dec black tape. Could you doctor the pic?

 

I am hoping someone can disabuse me of my understanding of the volume fractals, or help me see how those fractals show up in the Tapes of the attached Traverse.

 

Thanks for any help :)

The link below and series of posts below it may or may not help. As mentioned, sometimes you might not be able to see the full volume gaussian cycles clearly on 5min bars. The 1st clip you posted has tapes, those have everything required for tapes, all on the 5min ES. If you are trying to fit those tapes in with the BBT's, they are two different orientations and might not always mesh.

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-3.html#post71051

 

Notice on some posted charts on the 1st leg of a B2B there might be lower fractals that come together at the trough and finish on the up leg (2B). But on the 2B up leg, a r2b sub-fractal may or may not show up. The point being each leg may not have the same number of sub-fractals. And on a tape sometimes you have to go YM or maybe tick to see the full volume cycle. Hope that helps.

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.