Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
Spyder, please see attached with notes.
The brown p2 in real time had the potential to be both a sequence completion bar + a PkV bar and I appreciate that in and of itself, a PkV bar need having nothing to do with sequence completion. In this case, the market showed that neither of these was true and my question is this.
Does one ONLY find this out by virtue of the fact that the bar following the 'brown p2' is a low volume IBGS bar which does not indicate change?
If this is so, i.e., you can't predict change or no change from the context BEFORE this bar, then is the assignment of PkV, as opposed to PA, in this particular situation, entirely contingent upon what the bar after the possible PkV bar shows?
So unless one was a skilled tape trader, the action here would be to HOLD.
TIA
lj
No it did not.
No such potential exists on this bar. It can only be a Point Two in real time - nothing else.
Nope. A trader knows the market is moving between point One and Point Two prior to the arrival of Point Two, just as in this case, the market signaled 'Point One to Point Two' prior to the arrival of the Point Two bar.
We don't have Peak Volume, not becasuse we have Pace Acceleration, but because the market has yet to complete its sequences (we are moving to Point Two and have not yet arrived at Point Three.
Therefore, the market has not yet given permission to seek change.
If you believe the market did provide such permission, in other words, if you do not see in real time that the market had yet to arrive at Point Three, then you have missed a critical component of monitoring.
HTH.
- Spydertrader
Market never confirmed red dominance prior to the point 2 (1520 being discussed).
In real time I had annotated a traverse 1340-1415 (annotated in blue in spyder's chart for a different fractal) and hence established red dominance @ 1445 rtl BO in irv.
However based on spyder's chart it is a lateral and hence never established red dominance until 1520.
Yes, I did miss it and yes it does help. At this point in time, what seems logical, though not necessarily correct, is that the OB (just prior to the 'brown p2'), which began inside the LM and closed outside the LM with an increase of pace, became a p1 down reset bar and as such overode the '2 bars of increasing volume outside the formation' condition.
This scenario is quite different from the OB three bars prior which closed back inside the LM albeit with increased pace, i.e., price was 'constrained' by the LM.
TIA
lj
This exercise is called "evidence-based fishing" which like evidence-based activities in other areas of life, is rather contingent upon what one considers to be evidence. So if my evidence is faulty, please be mercifully swift and brief with your response.
Thought this might be a helpful chart to review as well because it has some channels annotated that look like traverses but aren't.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2129630
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2129630
For clarification, in order to complete the sequence of "dom traverse, nondom traverse, dom traverse", (thereby creating our channel), we needed to have red dominance established for the second dominant traverse. This occurred at 15:20. We cannot have peaking volume prior to sequence completion of a traverse. BTW, pkg vol often occurs at the end of the last dominant traverse of a channel.