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

The Lateral Drill laterals all have a higher volume peak for the 1st bar that forms the lateral (or in 1 case the bar before the 1st bar of the lateral which is the same color) than the previous volume peak of the opposite direction price movement.

 

In 1/13/2010 bar 79 this is less apparent but that is because of the end of day effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To inject some life into the lateral formation drill discussion...

 

My hypothesis is that the laterals in questions have two characteristics that separate them from other laterals:

 

1) they begin with a SYM pennant

2) they all form as a R2R or B2B completes (aka pt2) for some fractal level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thursday 21 January 2010

 

rs5 - IMO a declining volume long channel started at 11:45 and ended at 14:35... the rest of the day is R2R on the channel fractal. (channel = your medium gaussian lines)

 

...at least that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rs5 - IMO a declining volume long channel started at 11:45 and ended at 14:35... the rest of the day is R2R on the channel fractal. (channel = your medium gaussian lines)

 

Thank you for your input. Do you mean that you fanned the RTL (small container) from 11:45 est (p1) to 12:55 est (p3)? Or does your 2B (medium container) have p1 at 11:45 rather than at 1:05 est (shown in chart)?

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a closer look at the daily chart for ES.

Not a great chart but you get the idea.

It is from October until now. I have also re-attached the Monthy ES that I posted the other day for ease in comparing the charts.

 

Interesting how the volume is dropping on this up leg on the monthly. The daily looks the same way. Hmmm.

 

 

you do think loud.... ..... .....

 

 

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for sharing this. I know several people wanted a more in-depth description of what you do. Perhaps you might be able to show some real-time analysis of these concepts this coming week? As you know full well, annotating a chart in hindsight is very different from being able to do the same thing real time (which is very different from being able to act on observations).

 

Agree with you. It is where most beginners make mistakes - i think in knowing the exceptions to the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See attached.

 

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

 

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

 

Note the difference.

 

- Spydertrader

notsame.jpg.b8cadbe1f7a0191b6cd80e2cd4efb49b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how you can group these into those that start with a Sym, and then test the high or low of the 1st bar (without penetrating it), before penetrating the lateral boundary on a later bar.

 

However, from post #1171, I am confused a bit here. It looks like the bar 55 and bar 79 laterals fit this same pattern, but the 67 lateral does not (it starts with a Sym, but there is no bar that tests the lateral before it is penetrated). Just wanted to confirm that neither of those 3 laterals fit into the same set of laterals from the Lateral Drill.

 

I've attached the chart under discussion from #1171 for reference.

example1.gif.ff1b16ba4f55abdf4796e326801d7bbc.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that my question is somewhat off topic, but I am posting in the hope that somebody could point me in the right direction, either here in the thread or by PM, if they wish to remain anonymous. One of the examples of the problem that I am unable to resolve in the present state of my observational skills and sensory acuity is represented in the attached chart: by 11:30 on 1/22 it appears that the container is formed that moved the price from Point 1 to Point 2 of the Traverse. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by what was developed by the end of the day. The subsequent short tape ending at 12:15 on 1/22 appears to have moved the Price to Point 3 of the Traverse and 12:15 to 12:40 long tape seem to have finished the construction of the Traverse.

 

I have been trying to locate the solution that would indicate that annotating in real time as shown in the attached would be a mistake and that the 11:35 to 12:15 tape COULD IN NO WAY represent the r2r (p1 to p2) of the container that moves the price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse and that the 12:20 to 12:40 long tape COULD IN NO WAY represent the retrace in the short container that moves the price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

 

In other words, how can one KNOW in real time that 1135-1215 and 1220-1240 tapes represent medium \R and medium /B as opposed to skinny r2r and skinny 2b of the container that one may think is moving the Price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

 

Thank you to whoever would be kind enough to point me in the right direction.

1_22_2010.thumb.png.22272d45812e536e470b6f278830fa98.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See attached.

 

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

 

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

 

Note the difference.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Hi Spydertrader and All JHM Students,

 

A) Observation on SYM Lateral starts on Bar 43---

 

1) SYM forms on Bar 44

2) Bar 46 is the first bar which tests the bottom boundary of the Lateral

3) This is a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

 

B) Observation on [sYM] Lateral starts on Bar 57---

 

a) Ignoring the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral:

1) SYM forms on Bar 58

2) Bar 62 is the bar which tests the bottom boundary of the Lateral; yet, Bar 61

penetrated (FBO) the bottom boundary of the Lateral before Bar 62 .

3) This is not a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

 

b) Apply the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral:

1) SYM forms on Bar 58

2) Bar 61 penetrated (FBO) the bottom boundary of the Lateral and ends the Lateral.

3) There is no bar testing the bottom boundary of the Lateral before Bar 61.

4) This is not a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

 

All comments are welcome and appreciated! TIA

5aa70fb37195a_SYMLateralDifferentiation.gif.86d9749526e92da5f3efe8c78f27e8a3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused a bit here. It looks like the bar 55 and bar 79 laterals fit this same pattern, but the 67 lateral does not (it starts with a Sym, but there is no bar that tests the lateral before it is penetrated). Just wanted to confirm that neither of those 3 laterals fit into the same set of laterals from the Lateral Drill.

 

67 does not. The other ones do. I posted the corrected chart here: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-30.html#post86620

 

It also gives you a bonus lateral, one on the next day, that is the same. And one later that day that isn't. These two were mention in the post before the chart and so were included. The Green circles are all conforming laterals.

Edited by Ezzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first lateral starts with a dominant bar, while the second starts with a non-dominant bar, however, this bar is also an outside bar.

 

Another difference is that the first lateral moves in the non dominant direction after the second bar, while the other lateral moves in the dominant direction after the second bar.

 

Also the lateral boundary test is not at the same side.

 

--

innersky

 

See attached.

 

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

 

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

 

Note the difference.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, how can one KNOW in real time that 1135-1215 and 1220-1240 tapes represent medium \R and medium /B as opposed to skinny r2r and skinny 2b of the container that one may think is moving the Price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

 

You cannot see what the market has provided because of a bias caused by vocabulary. For now, try not to think in terms of 'tapes' building 'traverses' and 'traverses' building 'channels.' Instead, think in terms of 'fractals' (pipes, tubes, containers or pathways [whatever works best for you]) without names where one fractal builds another moving up to slower and slower fractals, but also, where one fractal is built by something faster moving downward.

 

Remove the overall bias by deleting your Gaussians, and look for an alternative way to annotate the area from 10:20 AM to 11:30 AM. For it is here where the real annotation error resides.

 

Once you can see why the 10:20 AM to 11:30 AM area cannot result in your current annotations, you'll have the answer to your question.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignoring the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral

 

Before one can concern themselves with how something ends, one must (for certain) know how that something begins. Adding uneccesary paramters provides nothing but uneeded complexity. As such, one need not consider (at this point) how any sort of Lateral examples end.

 

Remain focused on how any example begins in order to see whether or not any lateral you see conforms to the examples provided by The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). After you know you have an appropriate example, then you can determine what (if any) subtle differences (in the formation of the object itself) differ in such a way where one has the ability to clearly 'see' what information the market has provided. Finally, by combining this information with context and order of events one can know exactly to annotate a different thing on the chart's Volume Pane.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first lateral starts with a dominant bar, while the second starts with a non-dominant bar, .

 

--

innersky

 

Yes I see this and agree. Laterals form from bar 1 of the lateral, as a dominant bar, or a non dominant bar, and that begins creating the lateral. Respective of the fractal they are on.

 

While a series of laterals within one fractal exist as dom, non dom, dom ( ex: traverse ), on another fractal they may each be dominant( ex: tape level ).

( which may help eliminate fractal jumping and staying on course)

 

jbarnby had begun to differentiate and posted this in the past

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-27.html#post72076

 

and a reply to his work posted here

 

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-27.html#post72091

Edited by TIKITRADER
added comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the lateral boundary test is not at the same side.

 

The Second Lateral (the 'non-dom' labled example) does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). Understand why it does not.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is monthly ES with gaps closed. Looks to me like we probably made a 2 point of the current up tape. Still working on getting differentiated with lateral formations. Thanks for the discussion.

 

MKTr

5aa70fb3a62ac_MK20100124MnthlyES.thumb.png.a64b48c67f185658a3aa788e00a53912.png

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.