Iterative Refinement

[Spydertrader]

Quote from ljyoung:

The theme I'm talking about is,

Herein lies the difference between what I have attempted to get you to do, and what you are actually doing.

I do not want to talk, discuss or theorize where the 'problem' might reside. I want you to do the exercise recommended in order for you to know what you have missed.

It really doesn't even matter if you perform the exercise correctly, or if you arrive at the correct answer the first time through. The process of doing the drill provides the benefits you need.

Quote from ljyoung:

Today we have been in an intraday uptrend. 'Black' is dominant and I believe a nondominance began at 9:55 and continued until a point 3 up was achieved at 13:25 and confirmed at 13:30. This way of doing things puts the 11:35 bar inside a 2-3 lateral.

Review my instructions and go bar by bar and provide the answers requested - for the times requested - and you may just 'see' things significantly different than you do now.

Quote from ljyoung:

So Spyder would I be correct in my assessment of your assessment of my apparent need to complicate? Would I also be correct that the 9-19 problem (and quite possibly problems at other times and days) stems from this ineptitude, which I am attempting to rectify, in placing the starting pole of the lateral (movement/formation) where the market 'says' it should be?

Again, I'd prefer not to engage in another 'pulling of teeth' session here. My goal is not to admonish, nor to antagonize, but you do have a choice. You can recognize the opportunity before you and act on it, or you can create additional soliloquies.

You should also note, that someone else following along also read my advice to you, acted on it, and arrived at the exact area which previously provided confusion for them. They see clearly now.

- Spydertrader

 

[romanus]

Spydertrader, if you'd be so kind - do you use some kind of rule of thumb (with respect to OHLC ratios) to differentiate an actual Spike Bar from something that only appears to be a spike.

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from romanus:

Spydertrader, if you'd be so kind - do you use some kind of rule of thumb (with respect to OHLC ratios) to differentiate an actual Spike Bar from something that only appears to be a spike.

Try using Price comparing Close and Open to the High or Low. In other words, Close closer to the Open than to the High, or close closer to the Open than it is to the Low.

- Spydertrader

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from Spydertrader:

Herein lies the difference between what I have attempted to get you to do, and what you are actually doing.

I do not want to talk, discuss or theorize where the 'problem' might reside. I want you to do the exercise recommended in order for you to know what you have missed.

It really doesn't even matter if you perform the exercise correctly, or if you arrive at the correct answer the first time through. The process of doing the drill provides the benefits you need.



Review my instructions and go bar by bar and provide the answers requested - for the times requested - and you may just 'see' things significantly different than you do now.



Again, I'd prefer not to engage in another 'pulling of teeth' session here. My goal is not to admonish, nor to antagonize, but you do have a choice. You can recognize the opportunity before you and act on it, or you can create additional soliloquies.

You should also note, that someone else following along also read my advice to you, acted on it, and arrived at the exact area which previously provided confusion for them. They see clearly now.

- Spydertrader

Sorry for the delay. Lunch and the afternoon political cartoon show. We do not think in the same fashion Spyder and so it often takes me a while to comprehend exactly what you are saying, even though you believe it's perfectly obvious. I experience neither admonition nor anatgonism in our verbal interchanges.

BON, I thought I was answering your request the first time around. A regroup then. Beginning at 10:20, I see the dominance (black) unchanging. Even though there was an apparent change at 10:35, the faux RTL break at 10:40 reversed the mode back to black. This persisted up to (and beyond) the area of discussion at 11:30. As to why the 11:35 bar was not a valid signal for change, I must admit that until Romanus expressed the finding the way that he did, that particular aspect of things had escaped me. For me it was an elegant proof.

lj

 

[romanus]

Quote from dkm:

I am still struggling with this problem from 7/29. Both examples show a lack of increasing black volume after the lat bo bar, but 11:20 on 7/18 was an FTT whereas 11:50 on 7/29 was a hold.

Both lat bo bars form a pt3 of a traverse. The only differerence that I can see is that the lat bo bar on 7/18 was also a VE of a shallower traverse. Is this the difference you were referring to? If not, could you possibly post your chart from 7/29?

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2019546#post2019546

I think that I may have finally found an answer to that. The breakout bar 1145 close of on 7/29 does not create change in dominance. While the mode is long, the market continues to move in non-dominant fashion because the increasing volume on that bar develops from Lateral BO. The market does not transition from non-dominant to dominant until 1335 close of 7/29 when the first increasing volume appears that isn't the result of lateral/pennant/ formation/ EH BO.

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from ljyoung:

Beginning at 10:20, I see the dominance (black) unchanging. Even though there was an apparent change at 10:35, the faux RTL break at 10:40 reversed the mode back to black. This persisted up to (and beyond) the area of discussion at 11:30.

Just so I understand you correctly ...

You view 10:35, an outside Bar on increasing red Volume, which breaks an RTL of an Up Traverse, as non-dominant? And, you 'see' the 10:40, providing more increasing red (Extreme Level) Volume in the same fashion - non-dominant?

Perhaps, you could attach a snippet of your chart in an effort to ensure clarity.

- Spydertrader

 

[romanus]

Quote from romanus:

The breakout bar 1145 close of on 7/29 does not create change in dominance. While the mode is long, the market continues to move in non-dominant fashion because the increasing volume on that bar develops from Lateral BO. The market does not transition from non-dominant to dominant until 1335 close of 7/29 when the first increasing edit: black volume appears that isn't the result of lateral/pennant/ formation/ EH BO.

 

[ljyoung]

Just as I submitted my post the freakin' database crumped. Will eat and get back to you Spyder and thank you for your interest.

lj

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from Spydertrader:

Just so I understand you correctly ...

You view 10:35, an outside Bar on increasing red Volume, which breaks an RTL of an Up Traverse, as non-dominant? And, you 'see' the 10:40, providing more increasing red (Extreme Level) Volume in the same fashion - non-dominant?

Perhaps, you could attach a snippet of your chart in an effort to ensure clarity.

- Spydertrader

What I meant when I said:
Beginning at 10:20, I see the dominance (black) unchanging. Even though there was an apparent change at 10:35, the faux RTL break at 10:40 reversed the mode back to black.
is as follows:
AT 10:20 black is dominant. At 10:35 there is a break of an RTL on increasing red volume which APPEARS to cause a shift in dominance. However the next bar is a high pace red bar which shows a higher volume/lower volatility trait which, based an earlier post of yours: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2037313#post2037313
indicates that all that should be done here is a RTL fan (here's the actual chart: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2037295). My terminology may be clumsy but what I was trying to say is that given what is unfolding the dominance of black remains.

I did not take the shift in dominance from black to red which occurred with the 10:35 bar to mean that a reverse signal had been given because as a traverse trader I won't be looking for a reversal until the 1,2,3 up sequence is completed which at ths point it isn't.

What I meant by the elegant proof statement is that as the chart shows, the 10:20-25 pair are a BO+FBO of an LM and thus the 10:20 bar can't be seen as a trend-extender. Thus we are still looking for a new point 2 and continue to be doing so when we pass through the area of discussion at 11:15 -25.

Here's the snippet. Excuse its F&D condition.

lj

 

[ptunic]

This will be ugly