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

So in Neoxx's example with price blocked out and with the gaussians drawn in we should know it was a traverse. On other examples, (of traverses) it might not be so clear.

 

Absolutely correct. In this example, Volume told you everything required to arrive at a correct decision. In most every other example, such is not the case. Hence, Jack's frequent posts on, "how one could almost do this with Volume alone."

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you post a few charts with examples of tapes on them, that look like traverses

 

It appears you continue to miss my point.

 

Whatever something "looks like" in the Price Pane falls under the catagory of unimportant because a tape does not ever look like a traverse (or anything else) when observing the Volume Pane.

 

You can call something a tape, traverse or channel (hell, call it a goat if you like) by looking at a Price Pane, but Volume always indicates exactly what the market has built for you to see.

 

Without exception.

 

Three choices exist, and we call these three choices tapes, traverses and channels (skinny, medium and thick; or L1, L2 & L3 if you prefer different nomenclature).

 

No more 'Chubby' tapes.

No more 'Faster Fractal' Traverses.

No more Lateral 'Movement.'

 

Tapes build Traverses and Traverses Build Channels.

 

Again, whatever something "looks like" in the Price pane does not matter in the slightest. The Gaussians always tell you what the market has created.

 

Without a doubt, if asked, a roomful of traders would provide as many answers with respect to what the market created across most of today (7-20-2009). Again, if one chooses to look at what today's 'something' "looks like" by observing the Price Pane, a variety of opinions develop. However, only one possible accurate answer exists, and it resides in the signals the market has provided in The Volume Pane.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is great to have an active discussion of the method again. It is entirely possible to have a sharp, clear discussion without resorting to things 'pissy and snippy', such as condescension, ad hominems, misrepresentations, etc. It is most frequently the arrogance of ignorance which gives rise to such manoeuvers and as true discussants of the method we are above all that.

 

With respect to these methods, I agree that discussion can be valuable if one party is a definitive source (aka transference). Otherwise, the perceived benefit differs enormously from the actual benefit.

 

IMO, one creates an appropriate ego by putting it on the line and and building it anew when necessary. This should not be a big deal for anyone, although it does take a little practice to get used to doing it. The reward is new knowledge. Multiple moments of 'doh' will inevitably lead to a fabled 'aha'. If you experience a few 'haha's' at your own expense on the way to the 'aha', that makes it even better.

 

Differentiation is the path to ahas and 'new knowledge', and ego has no place there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With respect to these methods, I agree that discussion can be valuable if one party is a definitive source (aka transference). Otherwise, the perceived benefit differs enormously from the actual benefit.

 

 

 

Differentiation is the path to ahas and 'new knowledge', and ego has no place there.

 

Science teaches us (and I'm quite sure the same thing can be said of other disciplines as well) that one sould be appropriately sceptical and avoid pedants. Similarly one learns to be aware and beware of knowledge by decree. There is a singular paucity of such things hereabouts. However, I do not share your need for a definitive source because in reality, IMO, there is no such person. An open mind can always learn from another open mind.

 

As for your second comment, I couldn't agree more.

 

A question for Spyder. Are you aware of situations where the trendline-Gaussian correlation falls apart?

lj

Edited by ljyoung
word change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most definitive source of correct and accurate information is the market itself. Everyday it provides us feedback. It shows a trader everything he/she needs and it shows us where our strengths and/or weaknesses lie. It tells us where we are solid and where there is room for refinement. Spydertrader cannot make the journey for anyone of us but only act as a guide. In his great efforts, he has provided us all a record of the things required to learn to listen to the market and to learn from the market. I think many of us have come to a place where we feel the need to be graded on our homework. The market gives out grades everyday and it gives out homework as well.

 

Just my 2c

Edited by ehorn
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most definitive source of correct and accurate information is the market itself. Everyday it provides us feedback. It shows a trader everything he/she needs and it shows us where our strengths and/or weaknesses lie. It tells us where we are solid and where there is room for refinement. Spydertrader cannot make the journey for anyone of us but only act as a guide. In his great efforts, he has provided us all a record of the things required to learn to listen to the market and to learn from the market. I think many of us have come to a place where we feel the need to be graded on our homework. The market gives out grades everyday and it gives out homework as well.

 

Just my 2c

 

Well put ehorn. If I might add it also hands out detention when we're bad and think that we know more than we really do .

 

lj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears you continue to miss my point.

 

 

Such may be the case.

 

 

Tapes build Traverses and Traverses Build Channels.

 

Again, whatever something "looks like" in the Price pane does not matter in the slightest. The Gaussians always tell you what the market has created.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

 

This is exactly the reason I asked to omit the Gaussians annotations but leave the ones in the Price pane on those charts. For me personally that would allow to gauge the importance of various building blocks of Gaussians.

Edited by gucci
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most definitive source of correct and accurate information is the market itself. Everyday it provides us feedback. It shows a trader everything he/she needs and it shows us where our strengths and/or weaknesses lie. It tells us where we are solid and where there is room for refinement. Spydertrader cannot make the journey for anyone of us but only act as a guide. In his great efforts, he has provided us all a record of the things required to learn to listen to the market and to learn from the market. I think many of us have come to a place where we feel the need to be graded on our homework. The market gives out grades everyday and it gives out homework as well.

 

Just my 2c

 

Exactly.

 

Discussion is a poor substitute for differentiation, where the answers come from the market itself.

 

However, if one chooses to advance their knowledge via discussion, IMHO it should be with someone who has the answers and can act as a guide, rather than someone still searching for the answers themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spyder,

 

would the information provided by the Gaussians to the right of the marked ftt in the attached chart suffice, in order to unambiguously classify "this something" as a traverse. If so, would it be dominant or non-dominant one?

Question.thumb.jpg.f38e4f5b8a6ee18daa6f6a872ac98eb8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would the information provided by the Gaussians to the right of the marked ftt in the attached chart suffice, in order to unambiguously classify "this something" as a traverse. If so, would it be dominant or non-dominant one?

 

Your Gaussians have no variation in line thickness, nor do they show variation in color (red or black), nor have you chosen to show Price annotation in this specific example. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and suggest, perhaps, creating thoroughly annotated charts provides more information to the trader than you currently have the ability to see.

 

So how about you give creating a thoroughly annotated chart a try. Even if you get everything incorrect at first, you'll (at least) start to learn the process (finally).

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your Gaussians have no variation in line thickness, nor do they show variation in color (red or black), nor have you chosen to show Price annotation in this specific example. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and suggest, perhaps, creating thoroughly annotated charts provides more information to the trader than you currently have the ability to see.

 

So how about you give creating a thoroughly annotated chart a try. Even if you get everything incorrect at first, you'll (at least) start to learn the process (finally).

 

- Spydertrader

 

Spyder,

 

I find myself in a position, where anything I say about your last two answers can and will be interpreted as an attempt to debate something. The reasonable decision in such a situation is to abstain from it. So I will comply.

 

Your suggestion to embark upon differentiation process is without question a conducive one. As far as I understand the nature of the above mentioned process and am able to educe its appropriate modus operandi, I would associate it with falsifying the theories in critical rationality. With your knowledgeable answers I hoped to falsify my theories about some relationships between price and volume and move on. This would be really helpful, I thought.

 

By the way, my last question didn’t have anything to do with annotations at all (Gaussians are Gaussians, do they have anything to do with annotations?). But I guess that was my fault, because I asked it.

 

Thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understand the nature of the above mentioned process and am able to educe its appropriate modus operandi, I would associate it with falsifying the theories in critical rationality.

 

Whether through falsification or validation, the entire process begins with starting at a baseline of understanding. Whatever information comprises said baseline matters little, but the baseline of understanding must exist in order to begin. Currently, you have provided an annotation baseline which fails to provide you any worthwhile information

 

With your knowledgeable answers I hoped to falsify my theories about some relationships between price and volume and move on. This would be really helpful, I thought.

 

The whole purpose of this thread involves learning a process one which shows how (and where) to differentiate that which people believe from that which actually exists.

 

However, you appear to favor a different process. You (along with a few others) seem to feel having me provide answers to your questions represents the best and most efficient path toward success. I've suggested (instead) a path whereby the individual learns to obtain their answers from the one location which is always right - the market.

 

By the way, my last question didn’t have anything to do with annotations at all (Gaussians are Gaussians, do they have anything to do with annotations?). But I guess that was my fault, because I asked it.

 

Not all that long ago, you simply refused to place Volume on your charts - opting instead to learn about the Price / Volume Relationship by using Volatility as a proxy. To be clear, everyone should feel entitled to learn about the Price / Volume Relationship in any manner they feel best suits their needs.

 

Understand, I really do not care whether or not you follow the advice provided in this thread (or others), nor do I hold any ill will toward you in any way shape or form. However, if you can't see something (which exists right in front of your face), and several people advise you how you can go about the process of learning to see it, perhaps something of value can be gleaned from following directions.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, “our gaussians must match our trend lines” and “our gaussians always tell us what has been created”. Our trend lines come from correctly drawn tapes, traverses and channels so clearly, the trendlines have to be drawn first in order that the gaussians can be drawn to match the trendlines. For the gaussians to tell us what has been created, am I correct in assuming that we use the volume sequences b2b2r2b or r2r2b2r?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spyder,

 

the first passage in your response doesn't have anything to do with the quote.

 

In your second two passages, the first one doesn't have anything to do with the quote and the second one tries to obnubilate a reprehension.

 

The last two paragraphs simply contain some tinglers.

 

Thank you for your time, Spyder.

 

PS: Guys, I apologies for this "rude" answer, I won't bother you anymore with my posts.

 

I wish all of you a lot of success.

Edited by gucci
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this one part in the correct direction in volume / price relation ?

 

A danger exists with using older charts to find one's way. First, depending on the discussion (at the specific point in time of the chart's creation) annotation convention may differ in an effort to highlight the specific area under discussion. In other words, a discussion with respect to a 'faster fractal traverse' would see those areas highlighted in the annotated chart, and possibly, very few (if any 'actual' tapes), whereas currently, this discussion only considers three fractals - tape, traverse and channel (or if you prefer, skinny, medium and thick; L1, L2 & L3). Second (as is the case with this specific chart), the previous annotation convention may not apply to the current discussion at all. For example, note the Gaussians on the chart you attached. They only show two levels. Moving forward, we want to focus on 'seeing' all three levels of Gaussian activity and only three levels.

 

Again, I don't want to discourage the use of older charts. I just want to caustion everyone to view these artifacts as intended at the time of their creation, and not, from the vantage point of an improved knowledge plateau.

 

HTH.

 

- Spydertrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an attempt to differentiate tapes and traverses.

 

A tape begins as a 2 or 3 bar element with a LTL and a RTL. The tape RTL might steepen due to a close outside the tape LTL on increasing volume. A tape RTL may also require fanning to become shallower. In all cases a tape will continue as each new bar is formed until price closes outside the tape RTL.

 

A traverse must have a minimum of 3 tapes, forming p1 to p2, p2 to p3, and p3 to p1 of the next traverse. A traverse will include a full gaussian cycle of b2b2r2b or r2r2b2r. Any trend containing less than a full gaussian cycle cannot be a traverse and therefore must be a tape. The gaussians must match the trendlines. Traverses overlap at point 1 only.

 

Gaussian annotations on attached chart for traverses only.

20090721.thumb.png.4586faf4c681eef9f27eb92b89294397.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Dkm.

 

ok so lets start to differentiate a tape from a traverse.

There is a certain construct that will build a tape.

There is also a construct for the traverse.

 

These two can be compared against each other to differentiate.

 

We know a traverse is built of dominant- non dominant- dominant compartments to complete the traverse. Volume sequences will complete this.

Then each individual compartment that builds the traverse needs to be examined to see their construct.

We can look at each individual compartment of the traverse to see if they are built of a dominant- non dominant - dominant with volume cycles also completing this.

 

Tapes should be building each of the 3 compartments that build a traverse.

Tapes can be compared to a traverse to see if they require the same construct.

 

A traverse must have dom - non dom - dom in its build. Volume in a completed traverse will be increasing - decreasing - increasing .Does each compartment of the traverse require the same ?

 

Tapes build the compartments that build the traverse so

must a tape be built of the same ? increasing volume, decreasing volume, increasing volume ?

What exactly is the construct of a tape ?

 

 

What should be seen in the tape when it comes to volume sequences if any ?

 

This is posted to possibly bring about discussions of differentiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starting out at the most basic level, is this correct for the AM today on taping ? Volume gaussians are at the correct tape weight.
IMO annotating the first two down tapes the way you did would result in a tape sequence (dom, non-dom and dom) creating a completed traverse sequence on tapes ( and consequently on medium thickness gaussians as well) at 10:05 OB. The first tape is drawn to decreasing volume bar. As such it has all three Points (1,2 & 3) on the same bar - Bar 1. Bar is an increasing volume bar which makes lower low. As such we must fan to accommodate it inside the original tape trendlines ( the way dkm did on his chart that he posted). The fanned out (decelerated tape - red on dkm's chart) has it's Point 3 on Bar 3. Drawing the tape from Bar 2 to Bar 3 the way you did would result in tape having it's Point 3 on Bar 3 and consequently two trends of different slope sharing the same Point 3. I don't believe this is a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
attachment.php?attachmentid=12221&stc=1&d=1247803502

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=12223&stc=1&d=1247803578

 

Tapes build the compartments that build the traverse so

must a tape be built of the same ? increasing volume, decreasing volume, increasing volume ?

What exactly is the construct of a tape ?

 

What should be seen in the tape when it comes to volume sequences if any ?

 

This is posted to possibly bring about discussions of differentiation.

 

Hey Tiki,

 

Nice to have you back with us. Your questions are why I had posted a page ago regarding the above pics, and getting clarification for points 1,2,3 on the 2 bar tape. Assuming the smallest possible traverse you would need at least 6 bars (possibly 5?) to complete a traverse: 2 bar tape up, 2 bar tape down or lateral, 2 bar tape up. For a 2 bar tape the volume acceleration-deceleration-acceleration might be difficult to see over just two 5 minute bars. This is assuming that we need to apply the traverse and channel rules to tapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an attempt to differentiate tapes and traverses.

Nice work. I might want to add an accelerated pt3 at 12:40 or so for the traverse but that may be a bit OT for the time being. Looks good to me.

Share this post


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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • GBPUSD Continues To Faces Corrective Recovery Risk   GBPUSD continues to face corrective recovery risk as it eyes further bullishness. Support comes in at 1.2100 with a turn below that level shifting focus to the 1.2050 level. Further down, support resides at the 1.2000 level where a break will turn attention to the 1.1950 level. Further down, support lies at the 1.1900 level. On the upside, resistance stands at the 1.2200 with a turn above here allowing for additional strength to build up towards the 1.2250 level. Further out, resistance stands at the 1.2300 level followed by the 1.2350 level. On the whole, GBPUSD retains its corrective upside pressure    
    • havent done any crypto withdrawals or deposits, maybe support can answer that... Im more if a traditional trader, straight up regular connection tbh. 
    • Date : 19th August 2019. Events to Look Out for This Week. Trade worries remain and are expected to keep flip-flopping between risk-off and risk-back-on sentiment. Hopes for more central bank stimulus vies with fears that a number of major economies are simultaneously heading for recession, with a number of developing-world economies with high Dollar debt levels particularly exposed to the shifting financial cycle. Given these fears, further conciliatory remarks are likely from both China and the US with regard to their trade spat. Nevertheless, next week the economic calendar also focuses on the PMI releases globally.Monday – 19 August 2019   Consumer Price Index and Core (EUR, GMT 09:00) – The Euro Area CPI for July is expected to hold at 1.1%y/y in the final July reading from 1.3%y/y in June. Energy price inflation was clearly largely to blame and the core rate fell back to just 0.9%y/y from 1.1%y/y in the previous month. The core is anticipated to remain unchanged as well. With growth slowing down and the improvement on the labour market starting to fizzle out, chances are that inflation will continue to undershoot the ECB’s target range, thus adding to arguments for a comprehensive easing package in September. Tuesday – 20 August 2019   Monetary Policy Meeting Minutes (AUD, GMT 01:30) – The RBA left rates on hold in its last meeting, after back-to-back rate cuts in June and July, which put the cash rate at a record low of 1.00%, while Governor Lowe said that more easing measures could be needed. Minutes are expected to shed further light regarding future easing stance. Manufacturing Sales (CAD, GMT 12:30) – Manufacturing sales are anticipated to grow 2.0% in June after a 1.6% rebound in shipment values was revealed during May and following a 0.4% decline in April. The surge in transport equipment sales is consistent with the improving economy and as such fits with the BoC’s overall view that the economy is improving after temporary weakness in Q4/Q1. Wednesday – 21 August 2019   Consumer Price Index (CAD, GMT 12:30) – Canada’s CPI did not challenge the outlook for steady BoC policy this year. CPI slowed to a 2.0% y/y pace in June from the lofty 2.4% y/y clip in May. Inflation remains around the 2 percent target, with some recent upward pressure from higher food and automobile prices. Core measures of inflation are also close to 2 percent. Even though CPI inflation will likely dip this year because of the dynamics of gasoline prices and some other temporary factors, the annual and monthly numbers for July are expected to remain steady. As slack in the economy is absorbed and these temporary effects wane, inflation is expected to return sustainably to 2 percent by mid-2020. FOMC Minutes (USD, GMT 18:00) – The FOMC minutes, similar to the ECB Reports, provide an assessment as regards the views of the Fed’s policymakers about the interest-setter’s future stance and are usually a cause for FX turbulence. Thursday – 22 August 2019   Jackson Hole Symposium – Day 1 Services and Manufacturing PMI (EUR, GMT 07:30-08:00) – July PMI readings highlighted manufacturing weakness. This picture is likely to be seen again in the preliminary readings for August, as Manufacturing PMI has been forecast at 46.3 from 46.5 last month, still down from 47.6 in June, and indicates a deepening recession in a sector that has been hit very hard by global trade tensions and no-deal Brexit risks. Meanwhile Services PMI is expected to fall to 52.7 from 53.2. Services and Manufacturing PMI (USD, GMT 13:45) – Preliminary Manufacturing are expected to grow in August, to 51.0 from 50.4, as Services PMIs are likely to fall to 51.7 from 53. New Zealand Retail Sales (NZD, GMT 22:45) – Usually considered an index of consumer confidence and overall consumption in the economy, higher retail sales point to higher consumption and hence higher economic growth which is good for the currency. Friday- 23 August 2019   Jackson Hole Symposium – Day 2 Retail Sales ex Autos (CAD, GMT 12:30) – Retail sales are expected to have decreased in Canada, with consensus forecasts suggesting a -0.5% m/m decline should be registered in June and an unchanged ex-autos component at 0.3%. In May, Retail sales were disappointing, falling 0.1% for total sales and declining 0.3% for the ex-autos component. The decline in sales was driven by a 2.0% tumble in food and beverage stores. The report casts some doubt on the resiliency of the consumer sector to the ongoing parade of worrisome geopolitical and trade developments. Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.Click HERE to access the full HotForex Economic calendar.Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding on how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!Click HERE to READ more Market news. Andria Pichidi Market Analyst HotForex Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in FX and CFDs products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • AUDUSD Market Dragged Lower on Bears Dominance   AUDUSD Price Analysis – August 15 The bears were in full control moving the market lower in the prior session, although in the present session we see the pair found buyers around the level at 0.6748 for the 4th day in a row while the pairs bear dominance is evident falling to lowest close since the beginning of the year.   Key Levels Resistance Levels: 0.7297, 0.7207, 0.7085 Support Levels: 0.6748, 0.6676, 0.6620   AUDUSD long term Trend: Bearish In the bigger picture of the daily time frame, the decline from the level at 0.7207 (high) is seen as resuming the long term downtrend from 0.7297 (February high). Firm break of the level at 0.6876 (low) should confirm this bearish view.   On observation, further fall may be seen to the level at 0.6620 (low) next. On the upside, the break of the level at 0.7085 resistance is needed to be the first sign of medium-term bottoming. Otherwise, outlook will remain bearish even in case of a strong rebound.     AUDUSD short term Trend: Ranging On the flip side of the 4-hour chart, the AUDUSD is staying in consolidation from the level at 0.6676 and it’s intraday bias remains neutral first. On the upside, the break of the level at 0.6827 will extend the rebound.   But upside should be limited below the level at 0.6909 support turned resistance to bring fall resumption. On the downside, the break of the level at 0.6676 may target 100% projections from the level at 0.7085 to 0.6827 from 0.7085 at 0.6620 level reflecting on the daily chart.
    • EURJPY Approached Recent Swing Lows, Likely to Breach the Low of the Year on the Level at 117.50   EURJPY Price Analysis – August 16   The pair depreciated again in value against the Japanese Yen. The currency pair during the mid-week breached both the upper and lower horizontal lines on the moving average 5 and 13 while completing another lap on the low in today’s session towards the low level at 117.50.     Key Levels   Resistance Levels: 123.01, 121.40, 119.91   Support Levels: 117.50, 117.00, 114.84   EURJPY Long term Trend: Bearish The Daily time frame displays the EURJPY at the low, showing the pair is also testing a swing area on the level at the 117.50 to the level at 118.16 below the moving average 5 areas. The price attempted to dip below the area on August 12 to the low for the year on the level at 117.50, but could not keep the momentum going. The swing area was reestablished as support on August 13 and again today   However, buyers are trying to lean against the low level at 117.50, on the retest and hoping for a quick bounce. The trend is showing a bearish outlook in the medium and long term.   EURJPY Short term Trend: Ranging On its Intraday, the bias in EURJPY remains neutral for the moment. With the level of 119.91 minor resistance intact, further decline is in favor. Although a break of the level at 117.50 will resume a large downtrend to the level at 114.84 support next.   However, on the break of 119.91 resistance will indicate short term bottoming. A stronger rebound should be seen to the horizontal resistance line now at 121.40.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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