Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
Which is a definition of Lateral FBO.Quote from charts:
It appears that the increasing volume confirmation can be a bar that breaks the lateral boundary and closes back inside it ...
But you may got the rules right.
I fail to discern any rules with respect to which Laterals are the laterals for the purposes of establishing when dominant volume is not one of the three cases. It's a mess. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Well, there's always the RTL as the end all... the sequences had yet to complete.
- Spydertrader
Regarding the 13:30 bar, what I was getting at in the comparison is many times we look at something, in this case the If1 or FBO (on questionable increasing volume), and because of this circumstance, decide when we see it next time it means we definitely don't kill the lateral.
But there are situations or contexts that will give a different read, like in the second example.
Would the read on it have changed, or lateral been killed if the volume had been higher? Or if this bar occurred at the bottom of the lateral, doing an FBO there? Did it matter, with respect to killing the lateral, that the dominant direction had previously been up?
But there are situations or contexts that will give a different read, like in the second example.
Would the read on it have changed, or lateral been killed if the volume had been higher? Or if this bar occurred at the bottom of the lateral, doing an FBO there? Did it matter, with respect to killing the lateral, that the dominant direction had previously been up?
To avoid the scenario where I arrive at the correct conclusion using incorrect logic - let me solicit some feedback here:The first increasing red volume in the red down traverse comes from Lateral BO - 1400 eob.
The market then retraces and turns increasing red again 1430 eob.
That means that in a dominance sequence we are still did not make it to real pt2.
Therefore one would expects a retrace of some kind (including lateral movement) to account to market traveling from pt2 to pt3. And we get that between 1440 and 1455 eob.
Increasing red on 1500 eob then becomes from pt3 into the traverse - and one has permission to seek change.
Does that sound about right, or am I 'seeing' things that are not there?
Thank you.
Chart: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2091137
As requested, I will do due diligence with respect to the above. Lest there be misunderstanding from others, while I'm searching, let it be very clear that I'm NOT talking about Spyder doing some sort of post facto photoshop-like annotation but rather asking whether in REAL TIME the annotation of the LM could have occurred (i.e., would this be an acceptable annotation?) after the close of the second red down bar. This was a question not an accusation.
I will post when I find that quote.
lj
The sequences required of an Up Traverse ended on the 13:45 ES [close of] Bar. The sequences which began the Down traverse started on the 14:00 ES [close of] Bar. The sequences required of a down traverse ended on the 15:00 ES [close of] Bar. The signal for change arrived one bar later.
To be clear, I did not feel your tone represented anything accusatory. I simply wanted to avoid having you apply incorrect logic onto an incorrect context.
(If memory serves) the quote to which (I believe) you are looking for has to do with a Lateral Formation (or Movement) which developed after a signal for change (where the Signal for change formed on the second bar of a Lateral Movement and the third bar created the lateral - again, after the signal for change.
Of course, I could be entirely incorrect and completely misunderstood your comments.
HTH.
- Spydertrader