The Price / Volume Relationship

[Spydertrader 10]

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

[jbarnby 10]

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.

[ljyoung 10]

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.

[rs5 10]

Wednesday 19 August 2009

[Ezzy 10]

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?

[Mr_black 10]

Here is a good explanation of PV relationship...aka JW:cool:

[jbarnby 10]

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 August 20, 2009 by jbarnby
spelling

[Monkman 10]

Today's AM chart. Looking forward to seeing how other people interpreted the day.

[rs5 10]

Thursday 20 August 2009

[SK0 10]

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

[cnms2 10]

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)

Edited August 21, 2009 by cnms2

[Mr_black 10]

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

[SK0 10]

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.

[Monkman 10]

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

[Ezzy 10]

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

[rs5 10]

Friday 21 August 2009

[ljyoung 10]

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?

[Monkman 10]

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.

[Monkman 10]

ok here is the new chart

[cnms2 10]

ok here is the new chart

Does it make a difference?

[ljyoung 10]

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.

[Monkman 10]

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?

[cnms2 10]

... 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.

[Monkman 10]

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?

[cnms2 10]

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.