Iterative Refinement

[treeline]

Thank you, Spydertrader, for posting your extremely helpful chart today. If I read it correctly, it confirms a possible epiphany I had last night. Which is:

When we see Pace Acceleration, we should be anticipating Lateral Movement. Until we see that Lateral Movement, any move in the dominant direction on decreasing Volume is not a signal for change at the ES-only Traverse fractal. The other day I suggested that such bars are Flaws, which was incorrect. But I think I was on the right path in that these bars should be seen as the beginning of the non-dominant Lateral Movement that we're anticipating. This is why you stop your ascending Gaussian at the highest Volume bar in such situations -- in order to highlight the fact that we are actually in a non-dominant situation (even though price is still coasting in the dominant direction on decreasing volume). Am I correct?

On a related note, I think that a Step-Up in Pace is not quite the same as a Pace Acceleration in that a Step-Up in Pace doesn't require acceleration of the Gaussian slope. Is this correct? If so, then is it also correct that the above paragraph will hold true if we substitute the phrase "Step-Up in Pace" for the phrase "Pace Acceleration"?

Thanks again for today's chart, and also for yesterday's. I will be reviewing them again and again and again...

 

[romanus]

Quote from treeline:

TUntil we see that Lateral Movement, any move in the dominant direction on decreasing Volume is not a signal for change at the ES-only Traverse fractal.

9-19-08
1235 close of ES

 

[treeline]

Quote from romanus:

9-19-08
1235 close of ES

Argh! Thank you for reminding me why I never posted my "epiphany" last night. I noticed that bar but forgot it today when I saw Spyder's chart.

 

[guavaman]

Regarding the signal of change at 11:55 and the non- signal of change at 12:30

The 11:50 bar had IRV w Price moving down and closing outside the range of the previous bar, but inside a lateral formed by the 11:20 bar. Then the :55 bar had IBV w/ Price move up and a close outside the range of the :50 bar but inside the same lateral. Accordingly, Spyder noted we just experienced a signal of change and change in dominance on the :55 bar because although the completed sequence at :50 had not closed outside the lateral, the IBV w/ Price moving in the opposite direction on the :55 bar overrides the "no" signal of change at :50.

Conversely, the 12:20 bar completes the sequence that began on the signal of change / change of dominance bar at 11:55 closing outside the range of the 12:15 bar but also inside the lateral formed by the 12:00 bar again w/ IBV. This was followed by the 12:30 bar that moved lower on IRV, but we did not experience another signal of change / change of dominance. Spyder noted that we had was a deferment of an official Pt3 up traverse.

What is the difference between these two situations. Why did one (11:55) result in a signal of change / change in dominance and another (12:30) did not? The sequence was complete at 12:20 and followed by increasing volume in the opposite direction but no change.

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from treeline:

Am I correct?

Almost.

I say 'almost' because you have omitted a few details. You may already know these details, but have unknowingly failed to include them in your post, or you have yet to 'see' how these additional details enter into the equation. In either case, no need for you to change your current focus. In other words, 'add to' your current view, rather than, 'delete and replace' your current hypothesis.

Quote from treeline:

On a related note, I think that a Step-Up in Pace is not quite the same as a Pace Acceleration in that a Step-Up in Pace doesn't require acceleration of the Gaussian slope. Is this correct? If so, then is it also correct that the above paragraph will hold true if we substitute the phrase "Step-Up in Pace" for the phrase "Pace Acceleration"?

A 'step up' in pace (Pace Change) may develop in both dominant and non-dominant movement. Whereas, Pace Acceleration occurs only on the dominant side of things.

Pace Accleration often looks extremely similar to Peak volume (and requires differentiation for those who have yet to overcome this obstacle).

HTH.

- Spydertrader

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from guavaman:

What is the difference between these two situations. Why did one (11:55) result in a signal of change / change in dominance and another (12:30) did not? The sequence was complete at 12:20 and followed by increasing volume in the opposite direction but no change.

Two different contexts here.

One scenario already had a completed sequence, whereas the other scenario first appeared to complete its sequences, but the market informed the trader that the market had not yet finished moving from Point Two to Point Three.

One cannot seek a signal for change until the sequences have completed.

- Spydertrader

 

[romanus]

Quote from Spydertrader:


Pace Accleration often looks extremely similar to Peak volume (and requires differentiation for those who have yet to overcome this obstacle).

By 'differentiation' you mean how those bars look in real time and therefore the static charts do not reflect the differences?

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from romanus:

By 'differentiation' you mean how those bars look in real time and therefore the static charts do not reflect the differences?

I mean no such thing.

I define 'Differentiation' as knowing the subtle differences which make one thing different from another. In other words, the areas where many say, "I see no difference between scenario 'A' and scenario 'B.'"

Differences exist.

Pace Acceleration differs from Peak Volume, although it frequently looks the same to the less experienced.

While some people may 'see' these differences develop Intra-Bar, all the differences, about which I have spoken, exist at the end of each bar, and in hindsight. You does not need to 'see' them prior to the close of any specific bar.

- Spydertrader

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from romanus:

Spydertrader, could you comment on the trendlines in the attached, please. Somehow they don't seem right - but I can't think of any other way to annotate it.

<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2087324>

I expect most people felt 14:15 completed a down sequence, and began another up sequence. Clearly, it did not.

- Spydertrader

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from dkm:

Why is the next to last black bar non dominant?

Because the market has yet to complete its sequences.

- Spydertrader