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

Friday 9 April 2010......Have a great weekend all......or is everyone on vacation already?

es-10Apr09-1723.thumb.jpg.36ef2d9ec7b2c16488a704ef14a6fdc9.jpg

Edited by rs5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some thoughts on PV relationship in a fractal paradigm.

 

 

Thank you for the animated diagram. I am still trying to understand it.

 

Here is a simplified version of one area of a fractal diagram....obviously more fractal layers above and below what is shown here. Does the green zone appear familiar?

Gaussian-es-10Apr12.thumb.jpg.14ca3b410b47ee68b03d7b6f14c172d5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how does one reconcile this diagram with the fact that in a B2B we have rising price on decreasing volume followed by rising price on increasing volume?

 

Hi dkm, I'm glad you are still sticking around. :) To answer your question, you can simply change your way of "seeing" the movement of price from "up" and "down" to "dom" and "nondom" (or to "from right to left" and "from left to right" respectively). Think about it. Do you recall Jack speaking about horizontal orientation?

 

This jem from Spydertrader clarifies the topic. HTH.

 

Forums - Iterative Refinement

Edited by gucci
Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently moved from Los Angeles to Atlanta, didn't have time to look at charts for a while. Hoping to get back into the swing of things. :)

 

Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

04_13_2010_A.thumb.PNG.1a527e1d696009aa4f0226aa908988ae.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wednesday, 4/14/10

 

I may be missing a level of Gaussians between the top two levels. Maybe not. I'm not sure what else to do with them when I see a container (starting today at 10:20) that is traversed many times.

 

Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.

5aa70ff7d819a_ES06-104_14_2010(5Min).thumb.jpg.6419f75f7f856cb4ff812b4145d42b8e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comments desired, welcomed, appreciated, and, um... needed.

 

Based on your annotations, you have a non-dominant movement (Points Two to Three) of a container beginning at 15:25 PM Tuesday and ending at 10:20 AM Wednesday (All times Eastern and [close of] ES bars). This movement represents a certain fractal level. Since all markets operate on a fractal basis, the market must have created the same fractal prior to said container, as well as, another (equal sized) container afterwards - in order to complete the sequence of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant. Within each of these fractals, the market must also create faster fractals using the same exact rule set of dominant to non-dominant and back to dominant.

 

Based on your Gaussian Annotations, you have 'jumped fractals' as a result of not having the ability to 'see' that which the market has indicated as continuation, rather than, change.

 

Use the non-dominant container as a template. How does it differ from the annotations you have attributed to the same level container after the non-dominant container reached completion?

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use the non-dominant container as a template. How does it differ from the annotations you have attributed to the same level container after the non-dominant container reached completion?

 

Thanks very much, Spyder. I think I see my error. My non-dominant move leading to P3 in my non-dominant container has a peak volume that exceeds that of my preceding dominant move (in this case, P1 to P2) in the same container. This is not the case for any of the non-dominant moves within my subsequent dominant container. I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

 

You now have a hypothesis.

 

More importantly, you have created a data set which you can apply to any like container in an effort to confirm (or invalidate) said hypothesis. All that remains is to determine whether (or not) you have assembled a sufficient data set.

 

Note all possible parameters which enabled the creation of this container under discussion. At some point in the future, you will see either the exact same set of parameters create the exact same entity, or you'll see a subtle difference indicating that which the market is building has not yet completed.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is the signal for continuation that I missed.

Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, allow me to save you a lot of trouble. That hypothesis does not hold.:missy:

Thanks, dkm. I have been looking at this - testing the idea on older charts. It looked to me like I was incorrect, but, I was struggling with whether my "baseline" annotations/context invalidated the tests in the first place.

 

I suppose I'm guilty of over-simplifying. Although, one of the simplest rules of all, "one bar does not a formation break", would have prevented that non-dominant container from appearing on my chart. (Note to all: I have no idea if that rule is truly valid or, if it is, when it applies.)

 

Thanks for saving me some time, dkm. I already put in just about every hour of each day. Now, it's time for more coffee, due to the smilie in your reply. I know I'm going to need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look closely at the final 6 bars of the day. Do you see anything you might want to annotate?The rest of your chart looks very nice.

 

- Spydertrader

 

Thank you!

 

. . . . . . . . . .

es-10Apr15-2232.thumb.jpg.854ddbc869839cde02cd80f05d7c8c6d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thursday 15 April 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010.
rs5 and ptunic,

 

I am working on separating fractal levels. I think I have a tendency to promote Gaussian lines when they should only be visible at lower fractal levels. I have a question regarding a particular annotation that you both made. If you have a moment and don't mind me asking, please see the attached.

5aa70ff928c5e_GaussianQ.jpg.0b311a801789d654904e948bc035edc2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thursday 15 April 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010.
Spyder, rs5, ptunic and all,

 

Another, more important, fractal level question...

 

I have a carry-over up-container that was originally built many days ago by the same fractal level that revealed four containers on 4/15. I am trying to reconcile this and the existence of the down container with P1 at 11:05 and P3 at 15:05. The down container was built by the same fractal level as the CO up-container, but the down container resides inside of the CO up-container. Is this a real possibility or did I somehow botch the up container? It sure seems legit.

 

This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me. Thanks!

5aa70ff9334b7_FractalLevelQ.jpg.c4d1c7deabdcdbca901104fc8cb0e37c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This happens very often on my charts. Any help would be greatly appreciated as this is a major obstacle for me.

 

Your annotations exist accurately, or they do not. Double check any 'math' used for carry over containers (unless gap removal is automated). Review how the black container lines were drawn. It's easy to create error by failing to place a trend line on the exact low or high of the specific Point Three (or Point Two) - especially with multiple day trends. Double check highs / lows for the sepcific bars used with another data source to ensure you don't simply have a data source issue.

 

- Spydertrader

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.