Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
09-20-08 01:43 PM
It appears that I used incorrect terminology. In my question, I attempted to exclude the scenario when Price closes within the range of the previous bar by adding the phrase in parentheses that says, "for a bar that does not close in LM." It appears that closing within the range of the previous bar is not the same as closing in Lateral Movement (LM). From the discussion above between romanus and Spydertrader, it appears that the "two different answers depending on where Price closes with respect to the previous bar," are: (1) if it closes within the previous bar's range, then it is continuation, whereas (2) if it closes outside the previous bar's range, then it is change.
I'll use a hypothetical example to try to reword my question so as to prevent further confusion. Assume the market is in an up Traverse in which Point 3 was already confirmed by increasing black Volume. On the bar after Point 3 is confirmed, Price moves up on decreasing black Volume and increasing volatility and closes above the previous bar's high. Does there ever exist a context in which the increasing volatility on such a bar causes it to signal continuation instead of change on the ES-only Traverse fractal, in spite of the fact that it shows decreasing black Volume? If not, then does there ever exist a context in which some other reason could cause such a bar to signal continuation instead of change on the ES-only Traverse fractal, in spite of the fact that it shows decreasing black Volume?
I apologize for any confusion created by my improper use of terminology. Hopefully this post will not confuse matters further.
I attached romanus' chart to this message.
To clear up any possible data discrepancies, I'll note that my data shows that both the 11:55 bar and the 12:35 bar close above the highs of the 11:50 bar and the 12:30 bar, respectively.
It appears that I used incorrect terminology. In my question, I attempted to exclude the scenario when Price closes within the range of the previous bar by adding the phrase in parentheses that says, "for a bar that does not close in LM." It appears that closing within the range of the previous bar is not the same as closing in Lateral Movement (LM). From the discussion above between romanus and Spydertrader, it appears that the "two different answers depending on where Price closes with respect to the previous bar," are: (1) if it closes within the previous bar's range, then it is continuation, whereas (2) if it closes outside the previous bar's range, then it is change.
I'll use a hypothetical example to try to reword my question so as to prevent further confusion. Assume the market is in an up Traverse in which Point 3 was already confirmed by increasing black Volume. On the bar after Point 3 is confirmed, Price moves up on decreasing black Volume and increasing volatility and closes above the previous bar's high. Does there ever exist a context in which the increasing volatility on such a bar causes it to signal continuation instead of change on the ES-only Traverse fractal, in spite of the fact that it shows decreasing black Volume? If not, then does there ever exist a context in which some other reason could cause such a bar to signal continuation instead of change on the ES-only Traverse fractal, in spite of the fact that it shows decreasing black Volume?
I apologize for any confusion created by my improper use of terminology. Hopefully this post will not confuse matters further.
Before moving to 'ever exist' with resepct to the problem at hand, let's solve for the current case under discussion. Volatility had nothing to do with these instructions. One point in time shows continuation, while the other point in time shows change. Many have decided no differences exist between these two points in time.
The answer to your second question is: Yes - hence my advice to seek out the differences.
- Spydertrader