Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
. Nice chart btw (colors).Because both the ES 10:10 [close of] Bar and the ES 10:15 [close of] Bar have signaled, "The market hasn't yet finished moving laterally."
- Spydertrader
1005 close of is decreasing black in up trend - lateral, and two bars that followed close inside the prev bar range.
1010 close of signals change - Jokari Window, one of the ways the change can materialize is lateral movement - next bar closes inside the prev bar range
1015 close of signals change - Jokari/Peak Volume - again the type of change seen here is a flaw (or lateral formation)
Or, so it seems to me.
so far.
Confusion around 11:50. Thought I saw point of change (POC) but then 12:00 bo'd short on irv so I saw this as continuation short. The very next bar, 12:10, had ibv, confirming dom change to long. Just trying to annotate what I see as trav levels POC's.
edit: 12:00 incr vol, decreasing range = change
Confusion around 11:50. Thought I saw point of change (POC) but then 12:00 bo'd short on irv so I saw this as continuation short. The very next bar, 12:10, had ibv, confirming dom change to long. Just trying to annotate what I see as trav levels POC's.
edit: 12:00 incr vol, decreasing range = change
Good AM Spyder. Hope all is well with you and your family. Several questions about this AM's action from 10 AM (all times refer to the close of the bar). This discussion is based on ES 5 min only.
The 10:10 bar completes the sequence which began at 9:45 by providing the necessary increase in V for a P3 at 10:05. This same bar then gives a signal for change, in this case a JW (higher high with close within the range of the prior bar). We can 'consider' this signal for change because the sequence has been completed and it is NOT of consequence that the completion bar and the SOC bar are one and the same. Correct?
What follows at 10:15 is another black bar with a further increase in V and another SOC (JW, like the one before) however because continuation rather than change followed the first JW then we cannot 'consider' this bar for change. In other words because that first SOC flopped we know we have begun a transition into a lateral. Correct? Is it always the case (if it is at all) that when the first SOC after a completed sequence fails, then we perforce must 'start up' another sequence set?
A possible lateral begins on the 10:15 bar because of the pace jump and in time it becomes a LF with a BO bar on increased V at 10:35. The pace jump eliminates the 10:10 bar as a possibility for the start of a lateral. Correct?
This lateral is killed with the close of the 10:40 bar (the 2 closes for a kill rule) BUT although there is an IBGS with a JW (decreasing dom V after increasing dom V) we cannot consider this SOC because there must be 2 bars with increasing black V in order to confirm the 10:30 bar as a P3. Correct?
The 10:50 bar completes the sequence which began at 10:05 and the 10:55 bar gives a SOC (peak volume) which can be considered and at this point a traverse trader could reverse and go short. Correct?
Final question. We do NOT construct a lateral beginning with the 10:35 bar. If one had 'constructed' a lateral beginning with the 10:35 bar then there could not have been a legitimate change signal with the 10:55 bar because the sequence would not have been completed. Correct?
TIA
lj
The 10:10 bar completes the sequence which began at 9:45 by providing the necessary increase in V for a P3 at 10:05. This same bar then gives a signal for change, in this case a JW (higher high with close within the range of the prior bar). We can 'consider' this signal for change because the sequence has been completed and it is NOT of consequence that the completion bar and the SOC bar are one and the same. Correct?
What follows at 10:15 is another black bar with a further increase in V and another SOC (JW, like the one before) however because continuation rather than change followed the first JW then we cannot 'consider' this bar for change. In other words because that first SOC flopped we know we have begun a transition into a lateral. Correct? Is it always the case (if it is at all) that when the first SOC after a completed sequence fails, then we perforce must 'start up' another sequence set?
A possible lateral begins on the 10:15 bar because of the pace jump and in time it becomes a LF with a BO bar on increased V at 10:35. The pace jump eliminates the 10:10 bar as a possibility for the start of a lateral. Correct?
This lateral is killed with the close of the 10:40 bar (the 2 closes for a kill rule) BUT although there is an IBGS with a JW (decreasing dom V after increasing dom V) we cannot consider this SOC because there must be 2 bars with increasing black V in order to confirm the 10:30 bar as a P3. Correct?
The 10:50 bar completes the sequence which began at 10:05 and the 10:55 bar gives a SOC (peak volume) which can be considered and at this point a traverse trader could reverse and go short. Correct?
Final question. We do NOT construct a lateral beginning with the 10:35 bar. If one had 'constructed' a lateral beginning with the 10:35 bar then there could not have been a legitimate change signal with the 10:55 bar because the sequence would not have been completed. Correct?
TIA
lj