Thanks, that's what I was getting at, they are non-dom movement but don't qualify as a traverse. I don't think it was an oversight they aren't annotated as to what type of lateral. The second one seems to be a continuation of the first and not the start of a new sequence down. At the end of the second one, something ends (the lateral) and another begins (a new 1,2,3 sequence down). So I'm looking for the "what doesn't exist" for these to be traverses, and the one in the morning green channel, per the following quote:
Ticktrade et. al. attached is my revised view of 10-24. The 15:00 bar could be a Pt1 since it is a BO of a Lateral Traverse. As such it needs to complete a sequence hence the OB w/ IBV at 15:25 which also acts as the start of lateral movement from Pt2 to Pt3 of the newly formed down traverse. The dotted Gaussians depict this scenario. This is not how I saw it in RT. I believed the 14:35 bar as a completion if the sequence w/ no signal of change and we were going to "cycle through" once again. Just my thoughts on the day.
Hey Fry, you should really start including gaussians in your charts. You seem to have a good start on channels (try numbering your pts 1,2, and 3), but without volume gaussians, you are annotating only half the picture.
WGTrader, thank you for your feedback! You are right about the gaussians but unfortunately they are my biggest frustration at the moment. I'm pulling my hairs. I have no idea how to draw them. If I look at volume it looks like one big mess or chaos. Totally random. I already found some documents explaining them. Also saw both IBD videos. And anytime when I thought "...I think now I understand..." and then look at my or other people's charts then I have no clue again. Then I ask myself why did they draw increasing black here, why increasing red there. Why did they decide to draw that line until "here" and not "there" where the volume bar is higher/lower or black/red. I know that B2B and R2R could be important if I could spot them but at the moment I'm not there yet. B2R is the gaussian sequence in an up channel I think (or was it "traverse"?). R2B is the gaussian sequence in a down channel. Knowing what the dominant and non-dominant traverse also seems to be important. That's why I also couldn't figure out why Neoxx already after the first few bars can log if the bar is D or ND even though the traverses didn't show up yet. Anyway tommorrow I will continue to read more about gaussians in the hope to find my "Aha!". Thanks.
This is something I am working on too. I think my biggest challenge is in matching the gaussians to the proper channel fractal (tape, traverse, channel, or super-channel). Gaussians are fractal themselves, so you can actually draw multiple gaussians on top of each other. On top of that, another big challenge which is related is how to avoid "jumping trading channels" which leads to confusion in most cases. By this, I mean typically jumping between traverse, channel, or super-channel (or forest-level channel, not sure if my terminology is correct). Eg you think you're on a traverse but really you are on a channel. Spyder has a solid commentary roughly 4-6 months back in this thread on some tips to stay on the correct fractal I will be reviewing. I think these 2 issues (jumping fractals, and drawing gaussians correctly) are essential skills at the beginner level which I'm still working on. Also I would add is I'm still learning to identify dominant vs non-dominant movement, and whether that is the same thing as drawing black + red gaussians or not. There are some great exercises on that from a couple months ago in this thread that gave me greater understanding but I still have more to learn in this area. Gaussians, the way I've been trying to draw them, are very much based on channels. Basically what I attempt to do (which may or may not be the best approach) is try to identify the intervals that separate point 1, 2, and 3s. (and point "4"s etc). I try to make the gaussian color shifts appear exactly on these points (again I am a beginner so I might be way off here). Also sometimes the gaussian shifts intra-bar, "ibgs" as they are called, Intra-Bar Gaussian Shift. So sometimes the gaussian shift is rather abrupt (though in many cases these ibgs are at a fast fractal, like traverse, tape, or faster fractal, which isn't the one to trade on for forest level). In parallel with identifying point 1, 2, and 3's, I look at gaussian peaks. You look for when volume increases from a previous bar, and whether the increased volume bar is higher -- or lower -- than a similar previous increase of the other color. This appears to be related to determining dominance, and I sort of do both analysis (the point 1,2,3 one, and the volume one) at the same time. What I mean by at the same time, is I'll look at the price/channels (on it's own merits), then look at the gaussians, on their own merits, then sort of both together to try to paint a picture of what is going on.
The first lateral traverses the channel to a pt 3, so that would be at least a traverse. When we break out down and move to the second lateral, it appears to be a complete down traverse sequence as the volume gaussian goes increasing-decreasing-increasing. So if the 2nd lateral is part of a new down sequence, we run into LJ's issue with sequence completion vs. expecting another 1,2,3 traverse down. If it's all part of one long traverse, then after the BO of the second lateral we expect a new down traverse and all is good. So the question is, are both laterals just part of one big lateral because there wasn't a proper return to dominance after the first? Or do we have 2 separate sequences here? The chart for easy reference, referring to the red circled laterals: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2140365
See the attached document. If it doesn't make sense, look at it some more. If it still doesn't make sense, have a beer then look at it again.