Fractal Theory I

[xioxxio]

Thanks, baro-san and wilddog. My reasoning was that from P3 of the tape, all we needed was to complete a BBT3 in order to complete the tape. But the BBT3 also needed 3 equal and opposite parts. Because I failed to extend the lateral, I showed a full volume cycle in the 1st part where it didn't exist. Your version makes more sense. The devil was in the details. The volatility of bar 65 does indeed fail to equal or exceed all dominant bars in the tape. I’ll make future posts more current.

You are missing something far more fundamental, it has to do with acceleration of a container.

 

[midtown]

You are missing something far more fundamental, it has to do with acceleration of a container.

You are absolutely right, xioxxio, I was totally missing that!

 

[midtown]

I’m never quite certain the correct way to annotate subfractals or what to expect when they complete.

If you have visible iv in a subfractal, do you expect visible iv at its resolution, or do you sometimes need to go to finer tools?

 

[wilddog]

I’m never quite certain the correct way to annotate subfractals or what to expect when they complete.

If you have visible iv in a subfractal, do you expect visible iv at its resolution, or do you sometimes need to go to finer tools?

I am certain you have heard the expression "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

You have been told by a few forum members in the past your annotations are sloppy. I suggest you look at the charts by Spyder in the futures thread. Take note at the precision of his lines and anchors.

I really would not bother with finer tools since you just fine at fractal jumping with your current annotations, no need to complicate things further.

Sorry for being so harsh. Re-draw your lines and you will see at 14:15 the container accelerates. That will change everything for you going forward.

 

[xioxxio]

I agree with wildog, your annotations are terrible (lol). If you annotated correctly, yesterday was a very clean day. If your software is unable to support the accuracy you need, replace it. Ninjatrader is free, Sierra charts costs peanuts p/m and Trade Navigator is also free, however the data feed is where they make their money. There are tools available for this method with the above mentioned software.

http://ninjatrader.com/

http://www.sierrachart.com/

http://www.tradenavigator.com/

 

[midtown]

If wilddog or xioxx would be so kind as to post your chart for the 24th maybe I will better understand what you are trying to help me with. For example, I don’t see where I am fractal jumping. Also, when I redraw my lines up to 14:15 I get the same results. As far as sloppy, I will study the differences between our charts and see where I could improve. Show me the “water” and I will make a conscientious effort to “drink”. Thanks.

 

[xioxxio]

If wilddog or xioxx would be so kind as to post your chart for the 24th maybe I will better understand what you are trying to help me with. For example, I don’t see where I am fractal jumping. Also, when I redraw my lines up to 14:15 I get the same results. As far as sloppy, I will study the differences between our charts and see where I could improve. Show me the “water” and I will make a conscientious effort to “drink”. Thanks.

LOL

 

[midtown]

Thanks, xioxx. Besides the fact that your annotations look very clean compared to mine, I see several important differences between our charts.

1. You drew your LTL from the 2nd bottom (13:40) whereas I drew mine from the 1st bottom. I agree with you.
   
   
2. At the arrow you show a bar that spans the container and I would have seen as not a VE ITZ. It’s close, but I think you are correct again.
   
   
3. Where I am not yet persuaded is that the retrace beginning at 14:15 is equal weight with the BBT1 to that point in time. So I see BBT1 continuing after 14:35, rather than being promoted to a tape. Therefore I don’t see how things are much changed going forward.
   
   
4. You show a larger container, a tape, starting at 13:50. I don’t understand why the tape, if you saw it as such, wouldn’t start back at 13:10.
   
   
5. As to the sloppiness, my lines themselves drifted from their original position, which is very sloppy. Also I retain my original FC and BBT trend lines even after the trend lines have been fanned or accelerated. This creates clutter and a sloppy impression. I’m not sure whether it is incorrect to do so, however.
   

I also have a question about the OB at 14:15: would you consider that a b2b within that retrace? If so, the retrace is a full volume cycle, but even so doesn’t appear to me to be EW with BBT1.

 

[xioxxio]

Thanks, xioxx. Besides the fact that your annotations look very clean compared to mine, I see several important differences between our charts.

1. You drew your LTL from the 2nd bottom (13:40) whereas I drew mine from the 1st bottom. I agree with you.
   
   
2. At the arrow you show a bar that spans the container and I would have seen as not a VE ITZ. It’s close, but I think you are correct again.
   
   
3. Where I am not yet persuaded is that the retrace beginning at 14:15 is equal weight with the BBT1 to that point in time. So I see BBT1 continuing after 14:35, rather than being promoted to a tape. Therefore I don’t see how things are much changed going forward.
   
   
4. You show a larger container, a tape, starting at 13:50. I don’t understand why the tape, if you saw it as such, wouldn’t start back at 13:10.
   
   
5. As to the sloppiness, my lines themselves drifted from their original position, which is very sloppy. Also I retain my original FC and BBT trend lines even after the trend lines have been fanned or accelerated. This creates clutter and a sloppy impression. I’m not sure whether it is incorrect to do so, however.

I also have a question about the OB at 14:15: would you consider that a b2b within that retrace? If so, the retrace is a full volume cycle, but even so doesn’t appear to me to be EW with BBT1.

Too much room for written misunderstandings, send me a PM, happy to chat on Skype.

 

[midtown]

If “sloppy” annotations meant, among other things, imprecise trend lines, hopefully this is better. My errors involving accelerations of containers, after having had some help, are also, hopefully better. As far as gaussians, although meaningful to me, they are not very elegant. Comments are appreciated.