Iterative Refinement

Partial quote from Spyder: 09-28-08 09:57 PM
(If memory serves) the quote to which (I believe) you are looking for has to do with a Lateral Formation (or Movement) which developed after a signal for change (where the Signal for change formed on the second bar of a Lateral Movement and the third bar created the lateral - again, after the signal for change.

Perspicacious soul that I am, I have noticed a trace amount of meticulous behaviour on your part when it comes to annotation (ho, ho). That being so I will defer to your recollection.

The scenario you describe is clearly contextually different from the one that I was describing. Thus allow me to reformulate the question with a short series of questions.

1. You appear to be saying that the two bar BO of the FBP is entirely sufficient to validate the 'exclamation point' point 3 in my snippet in such a way as to finally complete the 1,2,3 TRAVERSE sequence which began on 9-23-08 and the fact that this occurred INSIDE a LM is NOT of consequence. Correct?
2. This sequence completion then allows the trader to search for a signal for change, which comes on the second red bar as a LM BO FBO and again the fact that this occurred inside a LM is not of consequence. Correct?
3. The change in dominance (red to black) is what is to be expected for this signal for change and does NOT require that the volume of the first black bar IMMEDIATELY show increasing black. Correct? If the first black volume was less than the last red volume then one would want to see increasing black in the second black bar. Correct?
4. The dominance change seen in the trace doesn't have anything in particular to do with the fact that the volume of the first black bar is greater than the volume of the second red bar. Correct?

The other question I had was why the 11:35 bar tells you at that point, black is non-dominant. As I said if my deconstruction of your annotation is correct then it must be that black is non-dominant at that point in time.

TIA for your help. No crap Spyder - as Jack says you are the real deal.

lj

PS: I'm crashing now and will repost (and not a riposte) in the AM.
 
Quote from ljyoung:

1. You appear to be saying that the two bar BO of the FBP is entirely sufficient to validate the 'exclamation point' point 3 in my snippet in such a way as to finally complete the 1,2,3 TRAVERSE sequence which began on 9-23-08 and the fact that this occurred INSIDE a LM is NOT of consequence. Correct?
More...

I do not understand why you keep referring to the 'traverse sequence which began on 9-23-2008' when the traverses all begin on 9-24-2008. See Attached.

However, the sequences have completed the requirements to form a traverse on the 11:50 ES [close of] Bar. Because we have chosen to strictly follow ES 5 minute Traverse Level Signals for change, and those signals do not include formation FBO's, the 11:50 bar doesn't meet the threshold required for Traverse Level change. The 11:50 ES [close of] Bar does say, "You need more information!" Now, we know we can go over and locate the information from the YM (or Str-Squ, or DOM, or Tic Chart - depending on what tools we choose to use and on what fractal we trade), but for this discussion we only have the coarse tool set available to us, and as such, we must wait for a sufficient data set to provide our signal. In other words, the bar says to us, 'Wake up and pay Attention." The 11:55 ES [close of] Bar which immediately follow our 'heads up' Bar provides a clear change in dominance and as such, the market has now provided the sufficient data set for change in this specific example.

Quote from ljyoung:

2. This sequence completion then allows the trader to search for a signal for change, which comes on the second red bar as a LM BO FBO and again the fact that this occurred inside a LM is not of consequence. Correct?
More...

See Above.

Quote from ljyoung:

3. The change in dominance (red to black) is what is to be expected for this signal for change and does NOT require that the volume of the first black bar IMMEDIATELY show increasing black. Correct?
More...

Incorrect. Dominance does not change without increasing black in this specific example.

Quote from ljyoung:

If the first black volume was less than the last red volume then one would want to see increasing black in the second black bar. Correct?
More...

You've now created an entirely different context than reality. The one you have described has continued lateral movement.

Quote from ljyoung:

4. The dominance change seen in the trace doesn't have anything in particular to do with the fact that the volume of the first black bar is greater than the volume of the second red bar. Correct?
More...

Correct. Increasing Red Volume changed to increasing Black Volume after a completed set of sequences.

Quote from ljyoung:

The other question I had was why the 11:35 bar tells you at that point, black is non-dominant. As I said if my deconstruction of your annotation is correct then it must be that black is non-dominant at that point in time.
More...

Black remained non-dominant at 11:25, 11:30 & 11:35. Pennant. Lateral Formation. Formation BO - respectively.

- Spydertrader
 
Quote from Tums:

Inter, Tunic, Neo... welcome to the journey.
Don't forget to post your charts!
More...

Thanks for the welcome, Tums!... :-)

Still wading through the massive archives. Huge thanks to Jack/Spyder/Mak etc for the superb information, patience and generosity.

At the moment, what I'm finding the most useful is going through Spyder's old ES charts with a fine tooth comb, and comparing my realtime annotation efforts with Spyder's more recent charts. Really speeds up the learning curve.

Keep up the great work.
:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top