Iterative Refinement

[charts]

Quote from romanus:

I once asked Spydertrader if his red point three down here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1986501
was suppose to have incr volume. He told me to set aside what I think I know , which I am still trying to do.

It's not the answer that I like, but it's the only one I got.

.. pink tape-to-traverse, maybe

 

[innersky]

Quote from romanus:

IMO, the faster fractal (2nd orange) sequence completion completed the slower fractal (pink) as well.

P.S. I don't share other poster's view of this area (1530 being p3 up) because I am trying to set aside what I think I know

Thank you for showing me the answer I knew but didn't see.
Love your gaussians

--
innersky

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from romanus:

In other words, this whole thing appears to me to be a case of channel RTL breach prior to sequence completion simply requires a slight 'fan' of the trend channel in order to accomodate the changing slope of the money velocity.

Too sweet romanus. Your basic tenet has more than considerable merit but I do not agree with the closing of the gap on the far left of the chart. The critical consequence of the failure of the uptraverse is the fanning of the channel RTL.

So let me propose the following. Could it be that the reason the traverse stopped was due to the fact that the RTL crosses were out of order? Price crossed the 'old' channel RTL and then stalled beneath the traverse (pink) RTL (see below). This provided a setup for what happened the following AM.

Price breached the traverse RTL, formed a 'new' P2 at 9:35 and then pushed out the 'new' channel RTL. The beauty of this is that there was no cross of the 'new' channel RTL while this was going on thereby producing a scenario where a 'surprise' downchannel could be produced. The corollary of this would be that because the order of the RTL crossings were 'correct' on Friday we can reasonably anticipate a new uptraverse being completed as part of a new upchannel.

Ehorn's point about the sequences always being present is validated in the current attempt at understanding. My earlier thought that it was a chubby uptape that bridged the two downchannels was incorrect. It was an accelerated uptraverse.

The further beauty of the JH/STM is that even if the 'explanation' is dead wrong, we still have the implements at hand to ALWAYS stay on the right side of the market. The CW does not see this and as long as one stays in that camp, you won't see it either.

Pass the freakin' koolaid. I'm going to finish watching me movie.

lj

 

[nkhoi]

a simple way to 'slide' the chart vertically is to create another 1 day chart and put it next to a current chart. Then you can slide either chart to match the scale.

 

[romanus]

Quote from ljyoung:

Could it be that the reason the traverse stopped was due to the fact that the RTL crosses were out of order? Price crossed the 'old' channel RTL and then stalled beneath the traverse (pink) RTL (see below).

Another logical way of looking at it is this - if we don't have a completed sequence for a channel, then we don't have a channel, period. And what appears to be a channel p3 isn't really a p3 because the channel sequence is not finished yet. I am still a bit foggy at recognizing higher fractal sequences, so I would not be surprised if my thinking was incorrect. We'll find out on Monday.

 

[guavaman]

Quote from romanus:

I once asked Spydertrader if his red point three down here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1986501

Certainly an interesting snippet from Spyder. I certainly cannot comment on his thought process there as my understanding of the methodology is far more rudimentary. However, I would note two things about the snippet that appear to differ from the period of discussion from Friday and therefore may affect ones MADA.

First the context does not appear to be the same. The snippet looks like a Non Dom retrace where Friday's period of discussion was the end of a widened channel.

Second, the snippet does not offer a traverse level SOC (save for the IBV that followed DRV to start the Up trend) where Friday's period of discussion had a traverse level SOC (read: Jakari Window change) provided at 15:10.

In the future I look forward to unearthing the reasoning and strategy behind Spyder's action and follow up comment.

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from romanus:

Another logical way of looking at it is this - if we don't have a completed sequence for a channel, then we don't have a channel, period. And what appears to be a channel p3 isn't really a p3 because the channel sequence is not finished yet. I am still a bit foggy at recognizing higher fractal sequences, so I would not be surprised if my thinking was incorrect. We'll find out on Monday.

We are basically saying the same stuff romanus except that I suggested that the reason for the incompleteness of things had to do with the 'out of order' RTL crosses. I've been wrong on more than one occasion too but like you, see the error and try to move on. That's the whole idea and while this may not be Fermat's last theorem, it certainly is challenging.

So yah, let's see what Monday brings.

lj

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from guavaman:

Certainly an interesting snippet from Spyder. I certainly cannot comment on his thought process there as my understanding of the methodology is far more rudimentary. However, I would note two things about the snippet that appear to differ from the period of discussion from Friday and therefore may affect ones MADA.

First the context does not appear to be the same. The snippet looks like a Non Dom retrace where Friday's period of discussion was the end of a widened channel.

Second, the snippet does not offer a traverse level SOC (save for the IBV that followed DRV to start the Up trend) where Friday's period of discussion had a traverse level SOC (read: Jakari Window change) provided at 15:10.

In the future I look forward to unearthing the reasoning and strategy behind Spyder's action and follow up comment.

I agree guava that they do not have exactly the same context but as you point out, in both cases one is looking for a change signal. The question is whether the JW signal is the 'real' change signal. Let me see if I can dig up that quote of Spyder's about 'change in the nondom", which at the time of romanus' reference post would definitely have been 'new thinking'.

lj

 

[ljyoung]

Here's that post of Spyder's:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2119595#post2119595

The context is not exactly the same - but what he says about the shift in nondominance is I think pertinent to romanus' reference post. In particular I think the Gaussian profile I mentioned, red rising and falling sequentially shows the nondom shift.

It is fun to try and figure this stuff out and it really helps when we share opinions.

lj

 

[guavaman]

Quote from ljyoung:

The context is not exactly the same -

This makes all the difference doesn't it?

Romanus may be spot on, but his take just doesn't jive to me. Perhaps I cling to a parochial view of the method, but we had completion of a sequence, an SOC, a B2B, a BO of RTL on IBV, DRV and finally IBV out of the widened channel.

In the end it doesn't matter whether one saw change at 15:10 or with the IBV around 15:30, both were on the right side of the market when it really counted.