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 esjockey:
I'm not aware that the 14:40 eob OB provides a valid pt3 for the second dom traverse. If it doesn't, then pt3 has to be at 14:55 eob, and the change signal after that.
Hope I'm not just adding confusion.
es,
Check your lateral annotation against the benchmark provided by Tums this AM which you can find here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113310&perpage=6&pagenumber=1175
and which may give a different picture of things.
lj
Don't try to "interpret" the Gaussians; you are not there yet. You are still at the beginning stages of "M". There is no point in doing the "A" when you are in "M".Quote from thenewguy:
Thanks, I've been in and out before. The problem with this "method" is that the further away from it you get, the more you realize the truth about it, and, well, here I am. People who know, know.
Gaussians... have been an issue for me, but I think I'm getting some of the picture. Right now, when it's obvious, I get it, but when it isn't, I have troubles. I think I just had an aha, and let me ask you this... Is it a true statement to say that gaussians don't show you what IS more clearly, they show you what SHOULD be, if you understand the situation correctly? I think that was my issue... identifying them as they look, and then saying "what does that tell me?", rather than saying, "this is what i understand the situation to be, and therefore my gaussians should look like this and if they don't, well, that tells me something..."
Thanks for the words and advice!
TNG
PS. I added an updated chart
Skipping ahead has been proven by many to be an exercise in anguish and frustration.
First thing first... lay down the gaussian lines; don't worry if they are in the wrong places. Not yet.
Don't worry if you don't know what you are doing... just do it. You need to start somewhere, and to have something to compare to.
If you have access to the old charts... find the days that Spyder has posted his charts; annotate the charts in your spare time. Use a blank sheet of paper to cover the bars... reveal the bars one by one as if the day is unfolding.
A quick comparison to Spyder's chart will point out your errors. Remember GIGO... if your annotation is wrong, so will your Analysis.
The journey is for those who wants to take it. Enjoy!
Daily Sim trade update. Position held short.
Stop moved 1 point from entry of 1303.50 to 1302.50, to allow for any retrace and if trade does not go well, close position with a point gain.
Thanks for all the feedback on daily charts. I really enjoy posting them.
Stop moved 1 point from entry of 1303.50 to 1302.50, to allow for any retrace and if trade does not go well, close position with a point gain.
Thanks for all the feedback on daily charts. I really enjoy posting them.
Attachments
Quote from ivob:
Thanks David. I see it now. However I don't see the value of it. You can draw two different channels (two 1-2-3's) or one larger one (one 1-2-3). It's all broken by increasing black and we don't want that when being short do we?
You failed to annotate a Traverse. As a result, you failed to see the forming channel. Someone then provides you with a correction, and you want to debate how one 'could' have viewed the situation.
Really?
You've already stated how your view failed to provide the correct outcome.
The lateral exists. Why? look what Volume tells you. A step down in pace results in the market moving left to right. You see the same thing during the formation of the Even harmonic.
Need more examples? Find a Lateral Formation, and look at the Volume.
Just because you don't see something in real time, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Lastly, in real time, you didn't break a trend line on increasing black volume. The trend line wasn't there.
I don't expect everyone to catch every single wiggle and nuance. However, I do expect that anyone can review the day and find out where they made an error. The market doesn't make mistakes. It's always right.
- Spydertrader
Quote from esjockey:
Thanks for the response.
So, you're saying the top of the OB can be pt3 down just by virtue of being in lateral movement - without an up tape or a lateral formation?
I was drawn to dkm's interpretaton for reasons which are not important (because they were wrong) but at a very basic level what made me feel I had to recant what I said earlier was the fact that my RTL made no sense given what came next. I was in the process of drawing up a response to you when Spyder posted.
Thankfully he has provided the correct annotation and so my response to you will be to look at what he has said. What I continue to be amazed with is the range of complexity that a completed traverse sequence can demonstrate from a simple 3+1 bar construct to a 9+1 bar construct in the channnel he has laid out in his post.
I notice in his chart the set of 4 parallel horizontal orange lines but at this point in time I really don't care to ask exactly what's going on because I'm hungry and have a headache and so will leave that task to someone else.
lj
Edit: What I meant to say was I really don't know why he elected to use the set of 4 parallel orange lines instead of beginning the final down traverse with the third bar in the lateral traverse but at this ... blah and blah.
Beautiful, just beautiful.Quote from Spydertrader:
Attachment: monitor.gif
I am trying to discover the reasoning for placing pt1 of the orange dominant lateral traverse on 14:25 [close of] - the bar that breaks out of lateral formation, and not on the previous one (14:20 [close of] which creates a lateral formation by failing to BO the Sym).
(A) Is it because the 14:20 [close of] bar represents change to go long (as it failed to BO the Sym, or as a bar that moved laterally on increased Volume), and it's not where sequence for the dominant traverse in a down channel starts?
Or,
(B) Because 14:25 [close of] breaks out of Lateral Formation and as such represents a change in trend (confirmed by more increased volume on the next bar)?