Iterative Refinement

[Spydertrader]

Quote from PTVtrader:

I'm having trouble understanding your red horizontal tape traverse that starts at 14:50.

The Red Horizontal Line beginning at 14:50 represents a Channel, not a Tape or Traverse. Once the Green Up Channel sequences complete, one can anticipate WMCN with resepct to the Dominant and Non-Dominant Traverses.

Quote from PTVtrader:

I thought the non dom sequence did complete on the 14:50 bar

All sequences required of a channel completed on the 14:50 Bar

Quote from PTVtrader:

but when inc black appeared on the 15:05 bar, I started to think that I was wrong and that we were in an up traverse point 2 which would then head to pt 3(which would still put me on the right side of the market ) but under the wrong mindset.

The 15:05 Bar breaks out of a 'Stall' (some call it a reverse pennant), and as such, becomes a 'one bar out of a formation' type of scenario. As such, a trader knows such bars represents non-dominance by default (until the market proves otherwise). In addition, a trader knows a certain set of 'flaws' (or as Jack calls them, 'internals') develop in the dominant direction. As a result, the trader knows to hold short.

Quote from PTVtrader:

Any additional insight or do I just have to trust the sequences even though in this case there was no optimal entry for a beginner traverse trader. Also, based on your annotations, my preflight will be signifcantly different.

I expect you to trust nothing, and allow the market to provide the proof that the same sequences, from point One to Point Two to Point Three and onto the signal for change, repeat over and over again on every time frame in every market.

With respect to an 'optimal entry' in this specific example, a hold until the market completes its sequences (or until the end of the day - whichever arrives first) yielded 20+ points on a single trade. Again, monitoring a P & L Statement throughout the trading day provides no signal with respect to enter exit hold or reverse.

(All times Eastern and [close of] ES Bars)

- Spydertrader

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from guavaman:

My question is was I simply lucky to have arrived at the place I did (13:00 SOC) having incorrectly analyzed and annotated my chart or did we just choose different but equally valid routes to the SOC.

Answer: B

(All times Eastern and [close of] ES Bars )

- Spydertrader

 

[brandx]

Spydertrader:

On your posted ES chart for today, you have several large lateral movements highlighted in medium blue, specifically 12:00 - 1310 and 1325 - 1420. Were these drawn manually or does your TN software version create these for you.

I have the Lateral Movement checked in Tn Gold but do not have such extensive highlights as do you.

I have never tried to attach a chart before so I hope this one sticks.

Thanks,

 

[PTVtrader]

spyder, thanks for the insight...

 

[romanus]

Quote from Spydertrader:

I encourage you to review IBGS Bars which you know provide signals for change, and compare those charts (along with their complete and thorough annotations) to the example at 10:15 today. I'm confident, you'll 'see' the difference, and arrive at the correct answer. After all, the market has already shown you that 10:15 isn't a signal for change. All that reamins is for you to locate the reason why.

- in responce to:

Quote from ticktrade:

chopped up thinking 1015 was soc. had inc vol ibgs than 2 jw bars follow that. how does one know which to take. In hindsight saw where the ym gave a signal for change. What if on the es only?

Spydertrader, please correct me if I am wrong.

It appears to me that permission to seek change exists on 10:10 bar and therefore in search for the reasons why 10:15 isn't a signal for change one can exclude an uncompleted sequence and concentrate on the real issue of differentiating the Peak Volume vs. Pace Acceleration.

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from brandx:

Were these drawn manually or does your TN software version create these for you?

I manually annotate all Laterals.

The Trade Navigator Program has certain limitations with respect to Automated Laterals at this point in time. This is a function of how their software 'computes' functions when populating a chart. We have requested a change to the software infrastructure in order to more accurately reflect the market in general and Laterals in specific. After Genesis completes their 'engine' upgrades, a more accurate function for Automated Laterals (as well as additional functionality not yet implemented for our methodology) can be created. Unfortunately, such a process requires a significant amount of time.

I plan to post in the Software Thread once this process reaches completion, and provide instructions for upgrading to any new files required.

- Spydertrader

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from romanus:

It appears to me that permission to seek change exists on 10:10 bar

Correct.

Quote from romanus:

and therefore in search for the reasons why 10:15 isn't a signal for change one can exclude an uncompleted sequence

Correct.

Quote from romanus:

and concentrate on the real issue of differentiating the Peak Volume vs. Pace Acceleration.

Incorrect. Differentiating between Peak Volume and Pace Acceleration represents something everyone must do. Whether or not doing so will help you locate the why for this specific example, I cannot say with 100% certainty.

However, I encourage you to compare and contrast examples that which you know represent an IBGS and a signal for change with what the market provided at 10:15.

(All times Eastern and [close of] ES Bars)

- Spydertrader

 

[romanus]

Quote from Spydertrader:



However, I encourage you to compare and contrast examples that which you know represent an IBGS and a signal for change with what the market provided at 10:15.

(All times Eastern and [close of] ES Bars)

- Spydertrader

Thank you for having a patience to repeat it for those of us (mostly me, I suspect) who are both hard of hearing and somewhat 'observationally' challenged.

My hypothesis is as follows.

It is known that every signal for change is also an FTT (except for VE on decr. Volume and LTL bounce). As such for every Bar which represents a signal for change there is (exist) a Traverse in which it (the FTT) fails to traverse. No such Traverse exists in this case and therefore 10:15 can not be a signal for change.

Furthermore, because of how 10:15 is formed (IBGS), some, if not most of the volume in that bar can be attributed to selling which is normally expressed in red color.

Is it possible that what takes place in that bar (10:15) is what you once referred to as
'change in dominance without change in mode'?

If yes, it might explain why the very next bar (10:20) is not signal for change. The market has to transition back to black being dominant in order to complete the sequence. It does that by creating a VE on 10:20 bar. Even though the volume on 10:20 bar is decreasing it does not seem to me to change the fact that VE is always created while market is moving in dominant fashion.

 

[PTVtrader]

...

 

[ticktrade]

Spyder
hate to over stay my welcome here but there is so much new info that needs to be grasped. Please point out my errors.
Actually anyone with insight is welcome.
I found a multiple of possibilities but this chart shows what i feel to be correct.

i forgot to add the bigger level gaussians.