You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
It is at least an IF1, but likely an IBGS. I can't tell which without the scale. Could also be peak volume but I'm unclear on these since I haven't seen a clear definition.Quote from Avi 8:
Look at the chart snippet you posted.
What specifically makes that a traverse level change?
Hint: Mentally change the bar to the correct color
But regardless, change or not was not the question.
edit: perhaps my question was unclear. The statement "Without an FTT, one cannot have a Point One" excludes the possibility of a LTL bounce as a Point One as I interpret the statement because the two are different by definition.
However, LTL Bounces have been formally presented in the past as an alternative to an FTT that can create a Point One. I'm trying to clarify this conflict.
Quote from R/R:
Did you intend to exclude these events as a possibility for a point one as a literal read of the above might imply?
If you want to discuss vocabulary words as signals for change, then FTT = Left Trend Line Bounce. If you want to discuss actual signals for change, then the vocabulary words representing specific signals for change at specific points in time need not be used as an item for differentiation. In the example posted by PointOne he chose to use a different vocabulary word than you because of a different example than you.
As I have said many times, it all boils down to continuation or change.
- Spydertrader
The situation is jokari window change, which is traverse level change. This also has nothing to do with the proposed question.
This is a situation where clarification is needed (requested?) when Spyder presents a ruleset that appears to contradict what has been stated in the past (ie. on his own chart).
There seems to be an ftt of the tape created over the previous couple of bars. Perhaps it was implied that there will always be an ftt on some resolution level at point 1. However, this is just my guess at an interpretation and I will await Spyder's response to know for sure.
EDIT: missed the post, disregard
This is a situation where clarification is needed (requested?) when Spyder presents a ruleset that appears to contradict what has been stated in the past (ie. on his own chart).
There seems to be an ftt of the tape created over the previous couple of bars. Perhaps it was implied that there will always be an ftt on some resolution level at point 1. However, this is just my guess at an interpretation and I will await Spyder's response to know for sure.
EDIT: missed the post, disregard