Iterative Refinement

My incorrect analysis and annotations of today :p .

Incorrect Analysis #1:Thought we had a Pt3 traverse down w/out a signal of change.

Incorrect Analysis# 2: OB @ 11:30 which closed inside range of previous bar was not signal of change.

Incorrect Analysis# 3: 11:50 bar as Pace Acceleration which meant continuation up after a retrace of some sort.

Incorrect Analysis# 4: Thought 12:25 was Peak Volume, but subsequent bars had lower low so I changed my view.
 

Attachments

Quote from guavaman:

My incorrect analysis and annotations of today :p ...
More...
The carry-over indicated that we'll be looking to finish the down move firstly (the gap may have misled you). Contrary to Avi 8's 1220 assertion, I see the first up-move starting at 1000.
 
Quote from charts:

The carry-over indicated that we'll be looking to finish the down move firstly (the gap may have misled you). Contrary to Avi 8's 1220 assertion, I see the first up-move starting at 1000.
More...
Down move finished yesterday and signaled long.

I made no assertion of 1220. Please reread the post.
 
1. 1220 eob - formation BO on increased volume and RTL break on increased volume

2. 1225 eob - more increased volume

3. the trend has changed

4. expecting pt3 down when increased red volume shows up 1305 eob

Still don't understand what happened! That was supposed to be a textbook pt3 down!

I am really curious to hear from those who were on the right side their thought process.
 
Quote from romanus:

Still don't understand what happened!
More...

You decided 11:50 represented Peak Volume. It didn't. Then, you decided all these increasing Volume red bars (12:00, 12:05, 12:20, 12:25) represented dominant movement. They don't. You decided that the market, at some point today, had given permission to seek a signal for change. It hadn't.

10:50 isn't Change (Price closes in a Lateral)
11:50 isn't Change (Pace Acceleration)
13:05 isn't change (Sequences not complete)

- Spydertrader
 
Quote from Spydertrader:

You decided 11:50 represented Peak Volume. It didn't. Then, you decided all these increasing Volume red bars (12:00, 12:05, 12:20, 12:25) represented dominant movement. They don't. You decided that the market, at some point today, had given permission to seek a signal for change. It hadn't.

10:50 isn't Change (Price closes in a Lateral)
11:50 isn't Change (Pace Acceleration)
13:05 isn't change (Sequences not complete)

- Spydertrader
More...

Spyder,

Just peeping in with a quick multi-part question.

Would it be correct that the LM which began after the LM of 10:45-10:55 (TN time=EOB) did so at 11:00?

It then continued till it was killed with the second bar of the symP at 11:55. Thus the 11:50 bar cannot be PkV but rather is a PA bar. Correct?

The reason that the 11:00 bar was picked as a starting point for the lateral had to do with the fact that it showed a pace change. Correct?

I had originally picked the 11:10 OB as the lateral's starting point but aside from the fact that its pace was falling off, its H/L did not engulf the 11:00 bar and thus wouldn't have killed it anyway. Correct?

Finally, is the 'essential' difference between PkV and PA determined by whether or not a TRAVERSE change signal is APPROPRIATELY triggered?

TIA

lj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top