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

I believe you mean container from 1 & 2 and container from pt3 to ftt, no? This rule is a tough one for me... I've tried using it but I never got to where I trusted it. Is this a hard or soft rule for you? (on a scale of 1 to 10).

...

Is this good analysis?

I really meant 1-2 and 2-3 are built the same way, and 3- was not yet built that way after those 3 black bars (11:35). See attached.

I don't do the kind of analysis you're proposing, so I have no opinion on it.

5aa710764f4f1_SpyderQ1-3tapes.png.df0346ec4fac6e0ab9daaa1098cfc252.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really meant 1-2 and 2-3 are built the same way, and 3- was not yet built that way after those 3 black bars (11:35). See attached.

I don't do the kind of analysis you're proposing, so I have no opinion on it.

 

Understood.

 

So is your rule:

 

IF 1-2 AND 2-3 are built in the same manner THEN 3 - end will also be built in that manner

 

OR

 

Given 1-2 being built in a certain manner THEN 2-3 AND 3- will be built in the same manner as 1-2

 

OR some other variant :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Understood.

 

So is your rule:

 

IF 1-2 AND 2-3 are built in the same manner THEN 3 - end will also be built in that manner

 

OR

 

Given 1-2 being built in a certain manner THEN 2-3 AND 3- will be built in the same manner as 1-2

 

OR some other variant :)

I'd word it like this: a container is made of three sub-containers, and three containers form a super-container, keeping in mind that at faster paces a container might look like a sub-container, and at slower paces it might look like a super-container. This is not my rule, it is one of the basic principles of the market operation that this method is based on. Others observed this fractal structure too, e.g. the Elliott waves.

 

In the discussed example, after those three black bars you had what looked lika just a sub-container.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd word it like this: a container is made of three sub-containers, and three containers form a super-container, keeping in mind that at faster paces a container might look like a sub-container, and at slower paces it might look like a super-container.

 

Yes. To re-state as a rule: as pace decreases the likelihood of seeing faster fractals increases... and as pace increases the likelihood of seeing faster fractals decreases.

 

In the discussed example, after those three black bars you had what looked like just a sub-container.

 

I don't like "looked like" :) I like IS. So ...is this the logic:

 

On the day of our example a B2B container formed on our trading fractal at the highest pace levels. This B2B had clearly articulated sub-containers (faster fractal movement). Therefore we can assume that for THAT DAY containers forming on our trading fractal at all pace levels will result in faster fractal movement being articulated.

 

(Sorry I tried to make it as concise as possible... best I could do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached are hindsight annotations for 2 traverses from today's ES. 3 levels of price and volume gaussians are annotated. Hopefully the color coding is obvious (all of the fastest fractal things are gray on price).

 

The TLs for the carryover short have been degapped.

 

I don't have my pace lines in place because I recently switched to ninjatrader and I still need to code 'em up.

 

Please critique.

5aa710765debb_ES06-11(5Min)5_10_2011.thumb.jpg.337de9f50807096a2d48449812e14a50.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like "looked like" :) I like IS. So ...is this the logic:

 

On the day of our example a B2B container formed on our trading fractal at the highest pace levels. This B2B had clearly articulated sub-containers (faster fractal movement). Therefore we can assume that for THAT DAY containers forming on our trading fractal at all pace levels will result in faster fractal movement being articulated.

 

FWIW, I don't believe that will prove to be a reliable hypothesis. Careful with assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, I don't believe that will prove to be a reliable hypothesis. Careful with assumptions.

 

OK - I think we all agree that pace regulates how much or how little faster fractal "stuff" one sees during the day. How would you phrase a rule regarding pace and visible/not visible sub-fractals?

 

No "tends to" No "looks like" - I mean an ALWAYS rule. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK - I think we all agree that pace regulates how much or how little faster fractal "stuff" one sees during the day. How would you phrase a rule regarding pace and visible/not visible sub-fractals?

 

No "tends to" No "looks like" - I mean an ALWAYS rule. :)

 

You're not going to like this, but rules will get you into trouble. There are too many examples to go into, here's one:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-144.html#post116745

 

For this case IMO you need to observe what the market is doing. Not that it conforms to a specific rule set. We've been warned against making rules vs. guidelines because rules don't allow you to account for other contexts you may not have considered.

 

So more questions: If you see sub-fractals on one leg is it a requirement that you see them on all legs? Or see the same amount (or levels) of sub fractals on each leg?

 

That may or may not be helpful as you test your theory:

This B2B had clearly articulated sub-containers (faster fractal movement). Therefore we can assume that for THAT DAY containers forming on our trading fractal at all pace levels will result in faster fractal movement being articulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're not going to like this, but rules will get you into trouble. There are too many examples to go into, here's one:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-144.html#post116745

 

IMO PV trading is 100% rules based... it's just that the rules can seem complex because they employ deductive logic. Also the rules are extremely context sensitive and I believe this is the point you are trying to make.

 

So a rule about rules :) Rules will get you in trouble if you are not mindful of the context.

 

About the snippet you referred to... IMO there was nothing wrong with Breakeven's application of rules in principle. The problem was that his rule for lats is too simplistic... there was no lat in the B2B (Ezzy I believe this drives home the point you and gucci were trying to make - mindless application of rules can get you in trouble).

 

For this case IMO you need to observe what the market is doing. Not that it conforms to a specific rule set.

 

By "this case" are you referring to the 5 bar sequence I highlighted in earlier posts along with the question of why we can't put a thick gaussian over it?

 

So more questions: If you see sub-fractals on one leg is it a requirement that you see them on all legs? Or see the same amount (or levels) of sub fractals on each leg?

 

Both of these are pretty easy to trivially reject because of the word requirement.

 

So - you can't be telling me that pace is useless as a BINARY/DIGITAL/Yes/No operator!?

 

What I was getting at in my original rule may have been too obfuscated. Let me rephrase it:

 

ON THAT DAY (i.e. for the given context) a trading fractal B2B formed on extraordinary pace (highest level) and exhibited 1 level of observable sub-containers. THEREFORE unless there is a dramatic shift up in pace to extra-extraordinary we KNOW that the 2R and 2B portions on the trading fractal will AT LEAST show 1 level of observable sub-containers.

Breakeven_snippet.thumb.jpg.80a0f7c1d4f4cf351104a49708d2bb4b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO PV trading is 100% rules based...

With my current understanding I disagree. Binary yes, rules no. But some may argue that it's a set of binary rules.

 

About the snippet you referred to... IMO there was nothing wrong with Breakeven's application of rules in principle. The problem was that his rule for lats is too simplistic... there was no lat in the B2B (Ezzy I believe this drives home the point you and gucci were trying to make - mindless application of rules can get you in trouble).

It was in reference to a different chart that didn't have a lateral.

 

In the other chart with a lateral, following the lateral rules there are two places they can be drawn in. Whether they are valid or at what point they end was a part of the issue.

 

Many times I was told "do not make this into a rule." I understand that now, trying to pass it along. The rules upon rules with qualifiers thing was a hindrance.

 

By "this case" are you referring to the 5 bar sequence I highlighted in earlier posts along with the question of why we can't put a thick gaussian over it?

 

Because you were creating rules to apply to this section, yes, but also in general. Could remove "this case."

 

Start the thick from the get go because it's what you are building next regardless of how many sub fractals show up.

 

Both of these are pretty easy to trivially reject because of the word requirement.

 

So - you can't be telling me that pace is useless as a BINARY/DIGITAL/Yes/No operator!?

No, not saying that.

 

What I was getting at in my original rule may have been too obfuscated. Let me rephrase it:

 

ON THAT DAY (i.e. for the given context) a trading fractal B2B formed on extraordinary pace (highest level) and exhibited 1 level of observable sub-containers. THEREFORE unless there is a dramatic shift up in pace to extra-extraordinary we KNOW that the 2R and 2B portions on the trading fractal will AT LEAST show 1 level of observable sub-containers.

 

I have seen too many examples of certain sacred unbreakable rules being broken to state something so absolute. If you find that it works for you, great, go with it. It might work out that way most of the time.

 

For me it immediately brings to mind a chart where I know it doesn't work out. So maybe another rule is added to account for that, or you find a different way to look at it. Just my :2c: worth what you paid for it.

 

Regards,

 

EZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments much appreciated EZ...

 

Many times I was told "do not make this into a rule." I understand that now, trying to pass it along. The rules upon rules with qualifiers thing was a hindrance.

 

OK - yes this statement gets at the heart of the matter... advice taken. The talk about rules was slipping into semantics... so I'll be more careful with word choice.

 

Start the thick from the get go because it's what you are building next regardless of how many sub fractals show up.

 

So let's get back to square 1. We agree that we can draw a thick line in. cnms2 suggested that pace tells us to expect a sub-fractal. I postulated that bar-by-bar analysis says that the first tape didn't actually have a dominant black in it so it could not constitute FTT.

 

How would you personally handle that decision point? ..what are your tells from the market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

I don't have my pace lines in place because I recently switched to ninjatrader and I still need to code 'em up.

 

Please critique.

you plan to re-code all p-v indicators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you plan to re-code all p-v indicators?

 

I pieced together most of it from scripts others have contributed... I didn't mind redoing some stuff because the original code was not written to my liking and I wanted to get my hands dirty with ninja script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I pieced together most of it from scripts others have contributed... I didn't mind redoing some stuff because the original code was not written to my liking and I wanted to get my hands dirty with ninja script.

 

in the spirit of community,

you should share your enhancements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in the spirit of community,

you should share your enhancements.

 

I use the standard PV bar coloring, PRV and pace... that's it. I'm a software guy so my "enhancements" are purely code style issues.

 

Is there a need for an automated pace script for NT? I didn't find one but I also didn't look very hard :) (took about 10 minutes in between forming bars)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a VERY informative chart to study the interlocking of various fractals. Remember, noise does NOT exist.

 

When studying the chart keep in mind:

 

 

"The pattern has a defined ending after point 3 and the three iterative refinements are part of dealing with the end effects. Any trip across the parallelogram on dominant volume after point 3 prolongs the parallelogram if and only if the volume dominates and price responds to "traverse". A signal is generated when volume no longer "pushes" price to a better place in the traverse. This occurance is an ftt." (Quote from Jack)

Fractals.thumb.jpg.f0e0fde18baa882780e5e6ee0eced9b3.jpg

Edited by gucci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The pattern has a defined ending after point 3 and the three iterative refinements are part of dealing with the end effects. Any trip across the parallelogram on dominant volume after point 3 prolongs the parallelogram if and only if the volume dominates and price responds to "traverse". A signal is generated when volume no longer "pushes" price to a better place in the traverse. This occurance is an ftt." (Quote from Jack)

 

So... the quote is in reference to the 2X portion of X2X 2Y 2X... see attached attempts to apply the logic to your posted chart. Have I applied the logic correctly?

 

I do not understand what the highlighted phrase refers to... what are the "three iterative refinements" ? ...maybe the 3 levels of Gaussians and corresponding levels in price?

gucci_chart1.thumb.jpg.4e6567c4a525dd6306d086a73a2258b6.jpg

gucci_chart2.thumb.jpg.a546d331a5a722ac6d4ae08c70338bea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This chart can also clear a lot of things up.

 

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2133515

 

Very interesting chart! Thanks for posting.

 

I understand the slower fractal orange and blue objects.

I understand the faster fractal pink object.

I do NOT understand the green object (highlighted on attachment)

 

Point 3 of the slower fractal orange thing overlaps with Point 2 of the faster fractal green thing... I thought this was "invalid" ... it's like the slower fractal thing is ending inside the faster fractal thing before the faster fractal thing completes. It's like a snake eating itself :)

 

Is there a good reason to even bother annotating the green thing? .. or is it essential to seeing where we are in the sequence of things.

spyder_chartQ2.thumb.jpg.25bd6b6cb9bf4ace1ed6f59161363e80.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let's get back to square 1. We agree that we can draw a thick line in. cnms2 suggested that pace tells us to expect a sub-fractal.

 

It's good advice. He also said:

 

The way I understand this method, one trades only what one sees, and not what one expects to happen. Also, as volume leads price, sequences pictured by my volume annotations lead sequences pictured by my price annotations.

 

I postulated that bar-by-bar analysis says that the first tape didn't actually have a dominant black in it so it could not constitute FTT.

 

Maybe a similar thing is going on with your analysis?:

 

About the snippet you referred to... IMO there was nothing wrong with Breakeven's application of rules in principle. The problem was that his rule for lats is too simplistic... there was no lat in the B2B (Ezzy I believe this drives home the point you and gucci were trying to make - mindless application of rules can get you in trouble).

 

How would you personally handle that decision point? ..what are your tells from the market?

 

See my first reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ezzy for your reply... you are trying to help me and I appreciate it!

 

As is often the case with this method the words can get in the way... soo I'm going to try a slightly different approach. :)

 

In my attachment I've numbered some bars.

 

The market has provided B2B 2R on the "THICK" fractal. We KNOW and can EXPECT that it will give us 2B on the THICK fractal... with 100% certainty.

 

On which bar # do you KNOW that as the market is forming the 2B it is articulating B2B on the MEDIUM fractal (1st sub-fractal) and why?

bar_by_bar.thumb.jpg.53d8c73e8dac30853871a9bbe76c8f4d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a VERY informative chart to study the interlocking of various fractals. Remember, noise does NOT exist.

 

When studying the chart keep in mind:

 

 

"The pattern has a defined ending after point 3 and the three iterative refinements are part of dealing with the end effects. Any trip across the parallelogram on dominant volume after point 3 prolongs the parallelogram if and only if the volume dominates and price responds to "traverse". A signal is generated when volume no longer "pushes" price to a better place in the traverse. This occurance is an ftt." (Quote from Jack)

Hi everybody

 

I am new to this method and after reading and studying this thread and also a lot on ET forum , I am somewhat stuck on the way to draw gaussians.

Gucci I looked over your chart and tried to establish the same on my own.

Between bar 10 and 20 I am doing something wrong .

Do I mix fractal levels ? if so how do i recognize that.

Or am I drawing these gaussians completely wrong .

TIA

DrawGaussian1.thumb.png.79e860b50fbf292b08edadb10acd1d50.png

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hyperinflation is a monetary phenomenon and demand is not as significant factor in pushing up prices. Prices go up because the value of the fiat paper money is falling as more and more is created. Example:  In Zimbabwe stores didn't even have goods on the shelves, people were hungry,  water and  electricity was scarce, no public transportation, gas was sold on the black market and large quantities of paper money confiscated...and yet the Stock market kept soaring... As the hyperinflation started to gain traction, there was a six week period in which the currency tumbled 10-fold. That’s a huge drop. During that time the stock market rose 500-fold. So corrected for inflation, the stock market rose 50-fold measured in US dollars. Six weeks later, the Zimbabwe currency had eroded another 100-fold and the Zimbabwe stock market went to zero. It fell 99.9% and then it stopped trading. In other words, ONLY those invested in PHYSICAL Gold and Silver were safe...the others lost it ALL!  Thank god Nothing and I mean NOTHING like that could ever happen in the developed nations because we are very smart and we don’t have any corruption or moral hazards ... see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2  for how to smartly drag out destruction and collapse ... still, ultimately ... "Good money drives out the bad."  So we really just have the one little issue to deal with - for us  no good money currently exists on this planet to drive out the bad ...  ...maybe we should just trust them to build us a new eCurrency on their blockchain. .. I'm just sayin'
    • SP gets 'interesting' for me at ~3150 and / or ~ 06/15 ... just sayin'     ///   “I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other,” Shelley’s Frankenstein ... could be anyone's Frankenstein ... we've all created a personal franken inside... just sayin'
    • EUR/CHF APPROACHING THE OVERBOUGHT REGION, SELLERS MAY EMERGE   Key Resistance Levels: 1.09000, 1.10000, 1.11000 Key Support Levels: 1.05400, 1.05200, 1.05000 EUR/CHF Price Long-term Trend: Bullish EUR/CHF pair is in an uptrend. The pair rebounded at the low of 1.05000 to resume an upward move. A correction candle body tested the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement level. This indicates that the pair will rise and reach  level 1.618 Fibonacci extension level. This is at the price level of 1.07500. However, the Relative Strength indicates that the market has reached the overbought region. This pair may likely fall. EUR/CHF – Daily Chart Daily Chart Indicators Reading: EUR/CHF is at level 78 of the Relative Strength index period 14. EUR/CHF has reached the overbought region. Sellers may likely emerge to push prices down. The 50-day SMA and 21-day SMA are sloping upward indicating the bull market. EUR/CHF Medium-term Trend: Bullish On the 4-hour chart, the EUR/CHF pair was earlier in an uptrend. The pair has reached level 1.08055 and approaching the overbought region. The pair may be resisted at a high of level 1.08500. EUR/CHF – 4 Hour Chart 4-hour Chart Indicators Reading The 50-day and 21-day SMA are sloping upward indicating the uptrend. The pair is above 80% range of the daily stochastic. EUR/CHF pair is now in the overbought region. The 21-day SMA crosses over the 50-day SMA indicating the uptrend. General Outlook for EUR/CHF EUR/CHF is an upward move but approaching the overbought region. It is likely to reverse and resume a downward move. Source: https://learn2.trade 
    • EURUSD CONFRONTS A LARGER BARRIER AT 1.1257 LEVEL WHILE EXITING OVERBOUGHT POSITIONS EURUSD Price Analysis – June 4 EURUSD ‘s latest dip from a high of 1.1257 while vacating overbought positions to a level of around 1.1200 could pave way for the rally to recover. In recent days the awaited announcement of the ECB ‘s decision has risen and improved the euro – potentially putting the FX pair higher. Key Levels Resistance Levels: 1.1495, 1.1366, 1.1257 Support Levels: 1.1020, 1.0870, 1.0635 EURUSD Long term Trend: Ranging After seven daily progressions in a row, ranging at 3-month highs in the previous session’s level of 1.1257, EURUSD is now under some downward pressure and falling to the sub-1.1200 area. Sellers in the pair moved in following conditions of overbought (according to daily RSI). The pair is presently declining 0.27 percent at level 1.1203 and confronts initial support at level 1.1020 followed by level 1.0950 and eventually level 1.0870 (low). On the contrary, a 1.1257 (high) level breakthrough may aim 1.1366 (high) inching closer to 1.1458 (high) level. EURUSD Short term Trend: Bullish On the 4-hour chart, the Relative Strength Index has fallen underneath 70, exiting overbought conditions. Momentum stays upside-down and the pair shifts between the 5 and 13 moving average. Resistance lies at level 1.1236, a necessary step on the way to the top in the last few days, leading to a new high of 1.1257 level. The next significant level to note is level 1.1366 as seen on the daily chart. Short term support beckons at a level of 1.1183, a support line in recent days, trailed by a level of 1.1146, a high swing from April, and also a range sealer. Source: https://learn2.trade                   
    • Quick Chart Update as ES Target gets Hit as shown above in previous threads but ViX still taking time ... Perhaps there is fair amount of early Precautionary-Puts due to current unrest situation in US Respectfully Flat on Swing Position around close on Wednesday & Preparing for the next Anticipated Volatility Note Much Gaps needs to be filled below on ES, but still keeping an Open Mind about the direction   Play it Safe and Nimble, & Keep BIAS away Enjoy
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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