2 min chart? We could do that in many locations for non FTT'd containers, right? Which could lead to uncertainty in real time, should you do that or not? It would become a perpetual question. Depending on the fractal you like to trade, that might not be a location at which you need to make a decision. But I still WOULD impact your ability to know if you have everything you need vs not having everything you need. Which definitely impacts trade decisions as far a container construction/endings.
Fractal Theory I
- Thread starter llIHeroic
- Start date
2 min chart? We could do that in many locations for non FTT'd containers, right? Which could lead to uncertainty in real time, should you do that or not? It would become a perpetual question. Depending on the fractal you like to trade, that might not be a location at which you need to make a decision. But I still WOULD impact your ability to know if you have everything you need vs not having everything you need. Which definitely impacts trade decisions as far a container construction/endings.
I cant imagine trying to trade the 2m. I just zoomed in to see what was going on, hoping that might be reflected in what is observable on the 5m.
2m is my trading time frame for indexes... TF, YM, and NQ. I dislike ES and rarely trade it. If you have specific questions you can PM me so as to keep the thread (topic) integrity.
This is a really good question; let me try to clarify something about my comment that it was promoted to a higher fractal. A lot of this method hinges on an individual's ability to study, test, and define circumstances in a consistent manner for themselves. A lot of breakdown in the learning process comes from the fact that it's impossible using words for you to understand exactly what I am comprehending even when I describe it in detail; and vice versa.
So, the entire container you spliced is the first container after an opposite sentiment Tape, meeting all the requirements for beginning it's own Tape. We wouldn't be wrong to call it a BBT. However, a three bar Simple FC can also do all of the things this entire container did, and be considered a BBT. Does it make sense to consider them on the same fractal?
It's an open ended question. In Jack's last iteration of his system, which is the medium through which I was introduced to these concepts; he stopped emphasizing fractal integrity as much as in years past, and instead focused a lot more heavily on tracking FC's and their volume sequences, from my perspective, at least. So a lot of that carried into my own operation even as I learned more about thorough, multi-fractal annotations.
So, although both of these could be BBT's; the first container we are discussing has multiple FC's within it; and the latter is only a single FC. So when I comment and say that it's a higher fractal; that might not technically be correct depending on how you understand things; but since there are multiple FC's within it and plenty more information to be analyzed, I will often "drop down" a fractal in these situations.
---
Anyway, to answer your question, this container hasn't been "promoted" by accelerating pace in this specific example. However, two things that come to mind to study regarding times like these when the market really stretches out the construction of single BBT's are:
1. The formation of a lateral which composes it's Non-Dominant component instead of a single ND Bar or some type of internal.
2. The type of Volatility expansions which occurred; there are actually quite a few permutations we can see of these. Here are a few ways VE's can be differentiated from each other;
A. Increasing or Decreasing Volume
B. Close inside or outside LTL
C. How many fractals were VE'd
D. Where we are in the OOE of the active fractals when we VE.
Hope that helps.
Attachments
![[6-20] Fractals.png](/et/data/attachments/136/136068-c0e7c099d4e33db80da7e607486b6d6c.jpg?hash=wOfAmdTjPb)
I can do the study, but actually, I was hoping for a simple answer. I conclude that the complexity means there are simpler "building blocks" in understanding that might best be mastered before tackling times like these. If that is the case, do you recommend we be more patient and let you present material in the format and order you think best? Or should we move ahead and hope the blanks will fill in with time?
The simple answer was that the container is a BBT; it didn't get promoted. However, during it's construction, faster fractals became visible due to the way it formed with a lateral for it's non-dominant leg and a VE which expanded the container without ending or promoting it.
Complexity in regards to a container is only a test we use on BBT's generally; any fractal higher than a BBT is almost always going to be complex by nature of it's requirements. Anything which does not contain a fully visible volume sequence is Simple, if a container is not Simple it must be Complex.
Does that answer your question more effectively? There are more details I could present; but there are so many subtle nuances that my primary goal is to present enough foundational theory for the method that individuals can start applying it, naturally begin to deduce more and conduct finer differentiation over time.
I'm not averse to responding to a few more questions here and there, but I have intentionally been becoming less directly involved in the thread after the initial series of presentations and examples. I plan on continuing to offer support for a little while longer to individuals interested in having the real-time opportunity to engage in discussion about these methods which I never did, and going back to relative inactivity after that.
Complexity in regards to a container is only a test we use on BBT's generally; any fractal higher than a BBT is almost always going to be complex by nature of it's requirements. Anything which does not contain a fully visible volume sequence is Simple, if a container is not Simple it must be Complex.
Does that answer your question more effectively? There are more details I could present; but there are so many subtle nuances that my primary goal is to present enough foundational theory for the method that individuals can start applying it, naturally begin to deduce more and conduct finer differentiation over time.
I'm not averse to responding to a few more questions here and there, but I have intentionally been becoming less directly involved in the thread after the initial series of presentations and examples. I plan on continuing to offer support for a little while longer to individuals interested in having the real-time opportunity to engage in discussion about these methods which I never did, and going back to relative inactivity after that.
Yes, that does help. Thanks for the extra clarification.
Why would you consider the pink down thing a bbt? It didn't ftt, therefore it's not equal in weight to bbt1. Which would mean, as of the up thing after the pink down thing, we're still building bbt1. Or call them whatever, same logic applies. But for you guys, if you end the down thing on a bbt...why? Not using equal weighting? Things on the same fractal can be dissimilar in makeup? If yes, is it because you don't care to require non dom things to be equal to the dom thing?
It's nice to see the fractal theory pop up from time to time, however seems like the development of such (from theory to a creation of an useful practical powerful and true technical analysis tool) has never happened.
I do believe that such development Would be priceless (huge value) for the financial traders of all around the world, maybe this is the reason why it is still not a public knowledge.
I do believe that such development Would be priceless (huge value) for the financial traders of all around the world, maybe this is the reason why it is still not a public knowledge.