The way I see it the red rtl crosses the top of bar 7, OB, so black pt2 is outside it.
I'm not familiar with the "equal weight" approach.
I see the black up container I drew as a tape.
Fractal Theory I
- Thread starter llIHeroic
- Start date
I'm not familiar with the "equal weight" approach.
I see the black up container I drew as a tape.The way I see it the red rtl crosses the top of bar 7, OB, so black pt2 is outside it.
I'm not familiar with the "equal weight" approach.
Thanks. Edit: Which bars are the bbt2 of your black up tape? Or do you not require 3 bbts within a tape and as long as you have a vol sequence it's a tape for you?
Regarding your question about VE's; I think you're losing track of your fractals when considering them. I sharpen trend-lines with ITZ for the fractal which was ITZ'd. With NITZ, the fractal which was NITZ'd is expanded but if there is a visible sub-fractal which formed the NITZ, you need to annotate its containers and sequences properly before resolving the larger trend.
The completion and sub-subsequent FTT of the lower fractals creates the points of the higher fractal. In your example, you have two NITZ of the teal container. One creates point two of the NITZ's sub-fractal which is annotated in purple, and the second FTT's it. It's a mistake to try to apply the same exact procedure and expectation of WMCN to them.
Build your smallest fractals first; containers and gaussians. Every relevant sub-fractal, VE, and acceleration needs to be resolved in order for the trend to complete. If you're seeing frequent continuations when you don't expect them, you likely aren't building and resolving your fractals correctly.
Baro-san's image is a great thing to study. Keep things simple; build your smallest sequences first. No matter what fractal, trends can't complete until their sequences do. You're rapid firing a lot of questions, just apply the basics, track sequences, then create and test hypothesis about areas of confusion and things should keep coming together. Learning how to learn is much more important than trying to discuss and get a question answered for every little contextual procedure. Hope that helps.
The completion and sub-subsequent FTT of the lower fractals creates the points of the higher fractal. In your example, you have two NITZ of the teal container. One creates point two of the NITZ's sub-fractal which is annotated in purple, and the second FTT's it. It's a mistake to try to apply the same exact procedure and expectation of WMCN to them.
Build your smallest fractals first; containers and gaussians. Every relevant sub-fractal, VE, and acceleration needs to be resolved in order for the trend to complete. If you're seeing frequent continuations when you don't expect them, you likely aren't building and resolving your fractals correctly.
Baro-san's image is a great thing to study. Keep things simple; build your smallest sequences first. No matter what fractal, trends can't complete until their sequences do. You're rapid firing a lot of questions, just apply the basics, track sequences, then create and test hypothesis about areas of confusion and things should keep coming together. Learning how to learn is much more important than trying to discuss and get a question answered for every little contextual procedure. Hope that helps.
The price non-dom leg of that tape is a simple translation on bars 11 and 12.
Understood, but aren't bars 11-15 the BBT2 of the tape? If yes, that means you don't require a BBT to FTT? Do you require 3 BBTs or just a vol cycle for the definition of a Tape you're using? I'm just trying to make sure we aren't discussing different things, as some basic building block requirements being different can make certain discussions moot.
Thanks, yes any tidbit can help. The sentence I quoted is the gist of what gives me issues. It happen a lot. Completed sequences (over & over) and on more than one occasion it's accompanied by a reasonable SOC (and FTT of course) that induces a reversal trade entry, only to subsequently fail & the existing trend needs to be fanned. That's what I'm mainly trying to refine, tweak or better understand. I have enough of a grasp on this stuff that other tweaks should be easy to make/adjust to if I spot something I'm doing wrong vs someone else's understanding of it.
Edit: I'll see if I can dig up a decent example of a run-on tape that has a few potential valid looking endings that didn't pan out. Having someone point out why I missed a detail would be great.
Very thought provoking discussion. I don’t think BBT2 could be formed by a simple translation on 11-12 since it does not have the complexity of BB1. Perhaps the inter bar changes on bar 7 provide the rest of the explanation.
Attachments
midtown, I was thinking bars 11 forward comprised BBT2 & BBT3, were you thinking the same? I didn't think we had a way to see it otherwise, but maybe was mistaken. In real time, of course, this stuff is extremely important so that we aren't constantly wondering which of multiple options for containers to heed.