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

Highlighted in bold, you say we cannot be at the end of the medium B2B, it's P2, until price BO of the B2B container (Olive) with increasing volume.

 

As price did not BO of it's B2B container (Olive), why is there a medium 2R gaussian ?

 

Why isn't that medium 2R a thin 2r gausian

ie: b2b2r2b 2r(at10.45)2b 2r(at11.10)2b ?

 

Or the thick B2B is not instead a medium B2B ?

 

Kind Regards

 

 

What about the following suggestion:

 

"Try to think now about what the volume trough at 10:55 indicated. And what happened in the price pane and volume pane at 11:05 and 11:10"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a general principle this sounds fine but in reality, the market simply does not behave in a uniform 3*3 relationship as in your theoretical illustration.

Upon reflection, I have to agree. I thought I was on to something but it appears not. You might think that IF anyone understands what is going on here they would step forward and offer an explanation. Instead, those that want to give the impression that they understand just post drills. Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agreed, this can not be Pt 2 of the medium sequence.

 

Two things make logical sense to me here:

 

1. The medium B2B can not yet be complete. I arrive at this by WWT (what wasn't that), as it was not the 2R the B2B must still be forming.

Or

2. The medium B2B was started in the wrong location.

 

I know #2 is obviously the correct conclusion, I am just stuck on the why.

 

 

Actually #1 is the logical consequence. Remember you do not trade in hindsight. So the placement of the medium B2B troughs at 10:25 in realtime is the right thing to do. But you move it after additional data arrives. Now you do not reverse at points 2 of the faster fractal traverses, do you? :)So you just hold.

 

 

 

11:05 and 11:10 form a down container which fail to move through the RTL just as happened at 10:45. However, both bars of the 11:05 container are decreasing volume unlike the previous.

 

 

 

Now look at what develops in the volume pane at the 2B part of the medium lines. (10:35 –10:50)

 

Think in terms of acceleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or the thick B2B is not instead a medium B2B ?

Kind Regards

Something like this perhaps? Because we have no olive rtl bo, the thin gaussian continues, creating only a medium B2B, with the trough of the B2B where the black peaks start to increase.

5aa7103c48f19_examplenewgs.jpg.e4855bff92f27d253c3099c6f297250f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached is my effort on the 10/13 downward movement. I tried to be very strict with the tape level, using a preliminary differentiation of the ve close as a guide to fan/no fan.

 

I've similar questions to those of breakeven:

 

1. Did I jump fractals?

2. A better understaning of _____ would improve this chart directly?

 

Any comments welcome and appreciated.

1013drill1.thumb.gif.ff84ebd7722e12a3935eaaebeff24bd2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the following suggestion:

 

"Try to think now about what the volume trough at 10:55 indicated. And what happened in the price pane and volume pane at 11:05 and 11:10"?

 

Thx for the reply.

I left out that part of your post for the following reason:

I was understanding a general principle to be that until the olive RTL had a BO on increasing volume then the B2B medium fractal would continue.

Such that we couldn't have the medium 2R yet.

 

I left out responding to volume peaks and troughs until this general principle was confirmed or other wise ? ?

 

What you are trying (most patiently and thank you) to convey, as I understand it,

is that the medium 2R is not defined as having to be outside the olive RTL,

but that volume determines where the medium 2R is ?

 

And even more specifically how that volume is formed ?

IE: higher peaks, lower troughs ets..??

 

Its not easy to talk this through in this medium so hope I'm explaining myself and thank everyone for their continued input.

 

For me, this is only about how to know to what fractal the gaussian relates.

 

If the solution, to understanding how to determine what fractal we are on, is about volume peaks and troughs then it would be great to have the general principles explained on that as I do not recall them being given in this thread, nor indeed in any of the threads that I have been following for at least the last 4 years !

 

many thx

Edited by zt379

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something like this perhaps? Because we have no olive rtl bo, the thin gaussian continues, creating only a medium B2B, with the trough of the B2B where the black peaks start to increase.

 

Yes exactly. Thank you.

As per my post 2330:

is a B2B RTL BO on increasing volume required in order to have its same fractal 2R leg

a principle required for this methodology ?

 

Many Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually #1 is the logical consequence. Remember you do not trade in hindsight. So the placement of the medium B2B troughs at 10:25 in realtime is the right thing to do. But you move it after additional data arrives. Now you do not reverse at points 2 of the faster fractal traverses, do you? :)So you just hold.

 

Alright! Now I am getting on the same page as you. This is starting to make sense :)

 

 

Now look at what develops in the volume pane at the 2B part of the medium lines. (10:35 –10:50)

Think in terms of acceleration.

 

It appears that volume continues to make higher peaks before ending the move on relatively low black volume. Volume also makes a higher peak that the volume at Pt 1. To be honest though, I am not sure exactly what this is telling me.

 

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes exactly. Thank you.

As per my post 2330:

is a B2B RTL BO on increasing volume required in order to have its same fractal 2R leg

a principle required for this methodology ?

 

Many Thx

 

No it's not an error that I'm quoting myself..lol

My question, I realize may have been miss leading.

 

I would say that yes a BO of the B2B RTL is required in order to have it's same fractal 2R leg.

What I am perhaps realizing is that the determination of that B2B RTL has more to do with volume than lines on a chart as we annotated them up to that point.

 

??

 

Regards to all...you too yoda :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually #1 is the logical consequence. Remember you do not trade in hindsight. So the placement of the medium B2B troughs at 10:25 in realtime is the right thing to do. But you move it after additional data arrives. Now you do not reverse at points 2 of the faster fractal traverses, do you? :)So you just hold.

.

 

That's the approach I use, but it means you are dealing with probability (of a B2B in this case) until later confirmation or disconfirmation.

Also, in this specific case it wouldn't cause a trading error if you are trading on a slower fractal. But since the same situation can occur on your trading fractal (fractals being identical), it can result in a error if/when it develops on the slower fractal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

part 2-

 

The gaussians feel like a necessary/sufficiency gate on what I build up from the tapes. Am I drawing them correctly or completely missing the boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the approach I use, but it means you are dealing with probability (of a B2B in this case) until later confirmation or disconfirmation.

 

No, it doesn't. It only means that you are not interested in knowing how many sequences the market will provide. If you try to predict the number of sequences, then you are right. YOU are dealing with probs.

 

Also, in this specific case it wouldn't cause a trading error if you are trading on a slower fractal. But since the same situation can occur on your trading fractal (fractals being identical), it can result in a error if/when it develops on the slower fractal.

 

If you choose a faster fractal to trade on, you'll need additional annotations for the even faster fractal then the chosen one. So your MADA will differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it doesn't. It only means that you are not interested in knowing how many sequences the market will provide. If you try to predict the number of sequences, then you are right. YOU are dealing with probs.

 

 

 

If you choose a faster fractal to trade on, you'll need additional annotations for the even faster fractal then the chosen one. So your MADA will differ.

 

1. I wasn't talking about prediction. If you annotate a B2B but then discover it wasn't, then your annotation was either of a probability, or a mistake.

 

2. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about trading on a faster fractal. Since fractals are identical, the same situation can occur on the slower trading fractal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I wasn't talking about prediction. If you annotate a B2B but then discover it wasn't, then your annotation was either of a probability, or a mistake.

.

 

This can not be a mistake because at the time of annotation you do not have any additional data.It doesn't have anything to do with probability either. The discussions of this type are futile. You want to think the way you think, so be it.

2. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about trading on a faster fractal. Since fractals are identical, the same situation can occur on the slower trading fractal.

 

You were clear enough. You just confused something about fractals.

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 5. It looks like the thick down goat ended today, and a new thick up started.

 

Am I on a decent path here, or am I so far off the track I've wandered into Baja?

1013drill5-big.thumb.gif.d34f95d96c0931d95587f9abf31da6fa.gif

Share this post


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

 

What you are trying (most patiently and thank you) to convey, as I understand it,

is that the medium 2R is not defined as having to be outside the olive RTL,

but that volume determines where the medium 2R is ?

 

One more time… It is not ONLY about volume BUT ALSO about price.

 

Think…

 

How do you draw a tape? Where do you place the point 3 of a tape? Since the tape is nothing more then the faster fractal traverse, think about the following questions.

 

How do you draw a traverse ? Where do you place point 3 of a traverse AND what HAS TO HAPPEN in the VOLUME pane for your point 3 of a traverse being in the right place?

 

Why do you HAVE sometimes to steepen your RTL?

 

Now what about the LOCATION of point 2? Does it have to be OUTSIDE of something?

 

Do not answer these questions for me. Think about them while analysing or annotating a chart.

 

And even more specifically how that volume is formed ?

IE: higher peaks, lower troughs ets..??

 

Yes. AND where those troughs and peaks are located (see price pane, points 1,2,3 containers) AND what the volume did to price.

 

For me, this is only about how to know to what fractal the gaussian relates.

 

If the solution, to understanding how to determine what fractal we are on, is about volume peaks and troughs then it would be great to have the general principles explained on that as I do not recall them being given in this thread, nor indeed in any of the threads that I have been following for at least the last 4 years !

 

 

I can relate to your frustration, believe me. But the GENERAL principles where explicitly explained by Spyder in the beginning of this very thread. You just had to pay attention.

 

HTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my DAX chart with annotations. Only traverse level Gaussians are annotated.

 

The Gaussian line before the last one should be red, sorry.

Dax.thumb.jpg.4a3a63448de0a0f3607943d474997c24.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a drill. Some of you might find it useful.

 

Thanks gucci. This is very helpful. Looks like when we see increasing volume, we steepen the container. Am I correct to say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks gucci. This is very helpful. Looks like when we see increasing volume, we steepen the container. Am I correct to say that?

 

My answer will not give you any confidence. And that is what it is all about. Think... Look at the charts. It should work anytime.

 

You are right, but do not forget the context,i.e. where you are in the sequence and what happens to the LTL.

Edited by gucci

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.