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
Quote from romanus:
Consider my comment as an attempt to apply some logic to tape/traverse/channel differentiation.
1. A set of bars that can be annotated (i.e. LTL and RTL can be drawn) as a traverse has to meet minimum requirements: points 1,2 and 3 on at least three separate bars (chubby tape being an exception), with increasing dominant volume at or after pt3. (Here I am dealing specifically with cases where pt3's are confirmed by volume, since other examples of traverses have been introduced recently (which are not confirmed by increasing volume) and I am excluding them, since I don't have the slightest idea how they fit into overall picture)
2. What we are annotating in reality is not a traverse, but a trend. So referring to a traverse as a tool which is used to annotate a trend, it is also necessary for a trend to exist in the first place to annotate it.
3. There are cases where a set of bars meets the minimum requirements outlined in (1) above, but we know a trend does not exist, because an old trend did not change. One of the examples would be formation/pennant BO on increasing volume failing to provide more increasing volume after the BO. (e.g. no down traverse 11:25 eob - 12:00 eob) Another would be where increasing volume, which 'appears to confirm pt3' on a set of bars that meets the minimum requirements outlined in (1) above, comes from RTL break, Formation BO/FBO or Spike bar. All three (RTL break, Formation BO/FBO or Spike bar) being the instances where one can see increasing volume when price moves in non-dominant direction.
[/QUOTE]
Quote from romanus:
I regret posting those. Obviously I assumed that you have not seen them. In attempt to be helpful and supportive I missed the fact that your questions were directed specifically to Spydertrader and it is him you were looking to engage in conversation. To avoid any further embarrassment I shall refrain myself from meddling in other people business.
As a side note, it's a generally accepted courtesy to abide to the definitions used by the presenter to convey his findings. This concept should not be foreign to somebody who is as witty and linguistically eloquent as you are, as displayed by your responses to other participants here.
You don't need to respond to me, as doing so would be waste of your time, just like writing this is a waste of mine.
Good luck.
I don't consider it a waste of time to respond to someone who responded to something I said. Thank you for your interest and I do not see you to be meddling in any way. I still have lots of questions and welcome your thoughts. As I said earlier, for me anyway, it was your observation on another chart that allowed me to appreciate what was going on with the fabled 'bar 6', long before the close of bar 6.
My question today would have been better framed with respect to an alternative progression of the third movement of the opening traverse, which is to say up instead of down.
Regards,
lj
this is what I wrote:
There are cases where a set of bars meets the minimum requirements outlined in (1) above, but we know a trend does not exist, because an old trend did not change.
In order to answer your question you need to know two things:
Where does the trend start?
and
Where does the trend end?
Can you answer them?
There are cases where a set of bars meets the minimum requirements outlined in (1) above, but we know a trend does not exist, because an old trend did not change.
In order to answer your question you need to know two things:
Where does the trend start?
and
Where does the trend end?
Can you answer them?
Quote from romanus:
this is what I wrote:
There are cases where a set of bars meets the minimum requirements outlined in (1) above, but we know a trend does not exist, because an old trend did not change.
In order to answer your question you need to know two things:
Where does the trend start?
and
Where does the trend end?
Can you answer them?
Ill take a stab at it. In the example you gave the trend began when pt 1 became established(black circle) in the blue up traverse. It continued up and saw an increased black BO of a pennant which confirmed a pt 3 of the blue traverse(annotated). But when the traverse was broken on decreased red the trend was not done, because there was no increased red BO of the blue traverse and thus the decreasing red meant the blue traverse(the old trend)was continuing its trend. What followed was an increased red BO of a sym pennant and a new pt 2 which is allowed in a non-dominant retrace from what you wrote. Then, the increasing black came in confirming the olive green pt 3 traverse which was still part of an old trend. And this whole trend doesn't end until we see a R2R BO of the olive green traverse. My thought is the old trend ends directly at the FTT of the olive green traverse or the red squared section. This leads me to believe the fact that because the blue traverse broke a lateral to reach pt 3 and didn't provide further increased black meant the old trend wasn't done and a new pt 2 would be needed. Is this close, correct, way off??
But then I ask what makes the pink traverse(thick peach circle) before that different. Is it because a B2B occurred that the pink down traverse/trend was considered finished??
Attachments
Yes, I believe this to be true.Quote from LittleMac:
In the example you gave the trend began when pt 1 became established(black circle) in the blue up traverse.
What makes it different is the fact that the pink traverse(thick peach circle) also started at its point 1. So you know you have a down trend and increased volume confirms it. Where that volume comes from is irrelevant and you don't need more red volume on the next bar.Quote from LittleMac:
But then I ask what makes the pink traverse(thick peach circle) before that different. Is it because a B2B occurred that the pink down traverse/trend was considered finished??
However the blue up traverse is different situation. You have an established traverse, confirmed wtih increasing volume after pt3. Then something happens. RTL BO, then formation, then BO of formation on increased volume. When more volume does not show up on the next bar - you know the trend which was annotated, bound, contained, described by the blue up traverse did not change. But the price broke the RTL so we fan.
Can you write down the sequence of events that leads to increasing volume in both cases and see the differences.
Take some index cards. Take two markers, blue and pink. Write down each step in the sequence of events for both cases pink and blue and number them. Line them up on the desk, blue on top , pink on the bottom next to each other for comparison. pt1, pt2, pt3, RTL BO, formation bo, next bar after formation bo for blue traverse. pt1, pt2, pt3 for pink.
It may sound funny, but this is how i do things when i am confused.
Spyder,
On the 12:20 bar (circled in black) you have annotated the low as pt2 and drawn a line from its low up to the close of the 12:25 bar.
With the rtl bo of the preceding blue traverse occurring on decreasing volume at 12:15, I chose to fan the rtl but you did not do this, presumably because you had already concluded that 12:00 was an FTT of the blue traverse. It was stated earlier in the jornal that an rtl bo on decreasing volume is a mandatory rtl fan but this no longer appears to be the case. Was my decision to fan the rtl incorrect?
What is the purpose of the line joining the low of the 12:20 bar and the close of the 12:25 bar that you annotated as pt3?
I was also surprised to see that the 13:05 bar was not considered to be an FTT of the orange traverse. Price subsequently does an rtl bo on decreasing volume at 13:15 yet you did not fan the traverse. You have an orange FTT at 14:20 but this seems to be a different orange traverse.
Thanks
On the 12:20 bar (circled in black) you have annotated the low as pt2 and drawn a line from its low up to the close of the 12:25 bar.
With the rtl bo of the preceding blue traverse occurring on decreasing volume at 12:15, I chose to fan the rtl but you did not do this, presumably because you had already concluded that 12:00 was an FTT of the blue traverse. It was stated earlier in the jornal that an rtl bo on decreasing volume is a mandatory rtl fan but this no longer appears to be the case. Was my decision to fan the rtl incorrect?
What is the purpose of the line joining the low of the 12:20 bar and the close of the 12:25 bar that you annotated as pt3?
I was also surprised to see that the 13:05 bar was not considered to be an FTT of the orange traverse. Price subsequently does an rtl bo on decreasing volume at 13:15 yet you did not fan the traverse. You have an orange FTT at 14:20 but this seems to be a different orange traverse.
Thanks