Iterative Refinement

Quote from ticktrade:

lack of certainty.
More...

Ticktrade,

I don't doubt that the 12:20 bar is Peak Volume, however, in retrospect I don't believe we were in a place that it was appropriate to act on it. As usual my interpretation of PV here may very well be wrong, but it is obvious that a traverse had not fully developed.

-guava
 
Quote from ticktrade:

... In the 1220 case pace stepped down so it would make sense that it would be pace accel not PV. ...
More...
The bar seams to me a "Peak Volume", but the bar's mode is still Up. Next bar is a sym, then another inside close, so no signal of change (on my fractal). On the other hand I notice the beginning of an overall increased pace period. The 1145 shows again "Peak Volume" but followed by a Down mode bar.

PS: Can't understand why Tums and Avi 8 are... :(
 
Quote from charts:

PS: Can't understand why Tums and Avi 8...
More...

They are trying to assist in traders development in their own way. Everyone is free to accept or reject what they and others post.
 
Quote from charts:
PS: Can't understand why Tums and Avi 8 are... :(
More...

A good guy can be viewed as a bad guy by some people, and vis versa. I have no control on how you view me, nor do I care.

People get frustrated when their reality is in conflict with their expectation.

You set your expectation, not me.
The reality marches on, with or without you.


I have long given up on re-explaining what Spyder has explained.
There's one guy who was in a hurry to get up and go... he was stuck at one point and begged me to give him a quick explanation.
I did not want to do it because he really should spend some time reading (and rereading) the text.
But he begged me again, so I relented.
Well, as expected, a quick explanation turned into multiple questions in multiple directions.
He got more confused because he just did not have the foundation to understand the situation. He then proceeded to accuse me of being wrong because Spyder said this and that. (quoting thing totally out of context.)
Since that time I prefer to give people direct link to what Spyder has said.
If Jander doesn't like this method, that's too bad. No skin off my back.

If you found my posts a distraction to your learning, pressing the ignore button can take you to a happier reality.
 
Quote from guavaman:

I'm starting to think that 12:55 was PV and not PA :confused:
More...


I don't know the correct answers but compare the gaussian troughs and peaks on the 1220 and 1255 possible PV's. The difference from trough to peak on 1220 was much greater, thus my concluson it was pace accel and 1255 was PV. Maybe someone that knows the answer can tell if this is correct or incorrect thinking. I viewed the 1255 as spike and since it had a lower gaus. peak I tend to take a sign of change easier than on inc. gaussian peaks. This is not a rock solid rule but works for me %80 of the time.
 
Quote from Tums:


I have long given up on re-explaining what Spyder has explained.
There's one guy who was in a hurry to get up and go... he was stuck at one point, he begged me to give him a quick explanation.
I did not want to do it because he really should spend some time reading (and rereading) the text.
But he begged me again, so I relented.
Well, as expected, a quick explanation turned into multiple questions in multiple directions.
He got more confused because he just did not have the foundation to understand the situation. He then proceeded to accuse me of being wrong because Spyder said this and that. (quoting thing totally out of context.)
Since that time I prefer to give people direct link to what Spyder has said.
If Jander doesn't like this method, that's too bad. No skin off my back.

If you found my posts a distraction to your learning, pressing the ignore button can take you to a happier reality.
More...

LOL, you are hilarious Tums. That is some kind of twisting of events that you have construed here.

I have no time nor inclination to debunk your entire bs post. You know that shit is not true and I am appalled that you would even think to post that.

One thing I will say is that I am indifferent to this method. The only thing I dont like about it is that you and your pal Avi run around acting like you know wtf you are talking about when you clearly dont. Although I will say he is light years past you in his understanding, clearly from the posts.. However it is a tight race between you two as to who is more condescending and least helpful.
 
Quote from ticktrade:

I don't know the correct answers but compare the gaussian troughs and peaks on the 1220 and 1255 possible PV's. The difference from trough to peak on 1220 was much greater, thus my concluson it was pace accel and 1255 was PV. Maybe someone that knows the answer can tell if this is correct or incorrect thinking. I viewed the 1255 as spike and since it had a lower gaus. peak I tend to take a sign of change easier than on inc. gaussian peaks. This is not a rock solid rule but works for me %80 of the time.
More...



As soon as I post the market proves everything I said wrong :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top