Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
Spyder,
Yesterdayâs EOD price action caused me (and possibly others) some consternation because it âappearedâ that the sequences were complete at 15:50 with a signal for change appearing a couple of bars later in the form of a pennant BO-FBO. However, if one was to believe such an interpretation of the pre-flight, then the action this AM would have to be explained with something along the lines of âthe market pulled a fast one and continued its dominant short channelâ. I do not believe this to be the case and thus it must be that yesterdayâs âendâ sequence was not completed till this AM with the two rising volumes at 10:05 and 10:10. The 10:15 was a JW bar and a traverse level signal for change with the shift in dominance being completed with the high pace black bar at 10:25.
If the above explanation is correct, is the logic behind discounting the initial erroneous interpretation to be found in one, all or any of the following:
1. At EOD there had been no channel expansion, i.e., the formation was âa traverseâ.
2. The high pace bar at 16:00 was important, aside from being a tape level signal for change.
3. The ârisingâ volume criterion was always voided because the second bar was tethered to a formation of some sort, which at its most basic level, puts things on âHOLDâ.
All times EST and EOB.
TIA
lj
PS: If you tell me Iâve missed a âcritical component of monitoring,â it will be sepuku-time, but with a butter knife.
Yesterdayâs EOD price action caused me (and possibly others) some consternation because it âappearedâ that the sequences were complete at 15:50 with a signal for change appearing a couple of bars later in the form of a pennant BO-FBO. However, if one was to believe such an interpretation of the pre-flight, then the action this AM would have to be explained with something along the lines of âthe market pulled a fast one and continued its dominant short channelâ. I do not believe this to be the case and thus it must be that yesterdayâs âendâ sequence was not completed till this AM with the two rising volumes at 10:05 and 10:10. The 10:15 was a JW bar and a traverse level signal for change with the shift in dominance being completed with the high pace black bar at 10:25.
If the above explanation is correct, is the logic behind discounting the initial erroneous interpretation to be found in one, all or any of the following:
1. At EOD there had been no channel expansion, i.e., the formation was âa traverseâ.
2. The high pace bar at 16:00 was important, aside from being a tape level signal for change.
3. The ârisingâ volume criterion was always voided because the second bar was tethered to a formation of some sort, which at its most basic level, puts things on âHOLDâ.
All times EST and EOB.
TIA
lj
PS: If you tell me Iâve missed a âcritical component of monitoring,â it will be sepuku-time, but with a butter knife.
