Iterative Refinement

[Spydertrader]

Quote from Ezzy:

Thought this might be a helpful chart to review as well because it has some channels annotated that look like traverses but aren't.

Thanks for reminding me to clarify ...

(On the chart labeled, 'part1.jpg') Both sets of 'Olive' Up Trendlines and The One set of 'Orange' Down Trendlines do not represent Traverses on the ES 5 minute Traverse Level trading resolution.

- Spydertrader

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from bi9foot:

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.

If I am understanding what you say, bi9, then the fact that the 15:15 bar was an OB really had nothing to do with anything, i.e., it could just as well have been a red bar with a lower high and lower low. When the 15:20 bar comes along, we fulfilled what should happen for a red dominant p2 (in this particular situation), i.e., its pace (volume) had to be higher than the black bar with the highest pace, which here would have been the 15:00 bar. The next bar drops pace down and that confirms the p2 at 15:20. Is that how you see this?

When you say"... it is a lateral ..." I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I would have considered the 14:45 bar to be a 'continuation' of the lateral above it, by virtue of the 'one bar outside the formation' situation.

lj

Edit: Please disregard my post immediately prior to this one. I had not read what charts and bi9 had to say before posting.

 

[Avi 8]

Quote from ljyoung:

...the 15:15 bar was an OB really had nothing to do with anything, i.e., it could just as well have been a red bar with a lower high and lower low...

I would not be so quick to 'change' something the market has actually shown.

Or to 'assume' one thing can replace what is actually shown.

To do so without any differentiation will lead to wrong 'assumptions'.

 

[bi9foot]

Quote from ljyoung:

If I am understanding what you say, bi9,

Nothing to do with pace lj. Look at how spyder has annotated the laterals. What do we need to establish dominance coming out of a lateral?

We went from one lateral to another. The OB you refer to 15:15 is the first close with inc vol. The next bar confirms the red dominance.

On a side note, I really need to figure which bar I should use to start my laterals. Like in this case where it is started at 1500 despite the 3rd bar closing outside and that is something I will work on. Have left some good money on the table either exiting early or late due to having the wrong lateral in place.

 

[treeline]

Quote from TIKITRADER:

Thanks for all the charts you have been posting Spyder.

I'd also like to say thanks to Spydertrader for all the recent charts. And thanks for putting so much of your time and effort towards educating any and all who are willing to do the work, while asking for nothing in return except to pay it forward.

 

[ljyoung]

Quote from bi9foot:

Nothing to do with pace lj. Look at how spyder has annotated the laterals. What do we need to establish dominance coming out of a lateral?

We went from one lateral to another. The OB you refer to 15:15 is the first close with inc vol. The next bar confirms the red dominance.

On a side note, I really need to figure which bar I should use to start my laterals. Like in this case where it is started at 1500 despite the 3rd bar closing outside and that is something I will work on. Have left some good money on the table either exiting early or late due to having the wrong lateral in place.

The guy who ran one of the first places I practiced medicine at, years ago, mentioned to me one time that he'd gone through medical school and for whatever reasons hadn't learned squat about gallbladder disease. My failure, now resolved, to appreciate something equally as basic for the JH/STM, falls into the same category. Thank you boyz for lifting the veil.

I agree that the lateral initiation conundrum is still a bit of a bite, but it's getting to be less so. In the case you mention I think it must be a case of '2 bars outside the extrema to kill a formation' situation, and a Pennant is a formation. However the FTP just above this which is formed with 2 bars outside the extrema of the 13:35 LM doesn't kill the lateral. Anyone seen that one before? Does it mean that a LM cannot be terminated with a Pennant?

lj

 

[guavaman]

Issues of Confusion 10-22-08

1. Looking for the Signal of Change at or around 10:05.

Concerning 13:20, 13:25 and 13:30 all would have completed a traverse and provided a valid Signal of Change.

13:20 = It seems logical that the 13:20 (IRV w/ close inside range of previous bar) would have confirmed the "dominance" of the 13:15, complete a down traverse and thus create a Signal of Change.

13:25 = Close outside range of previous bar on DRV would have completed a down traverse (with 13:15 & 13:20 providing the "dominance") and create a Signal of Change

13:30 IRV again with close inside the range of the previous bar

SOC's clearly did not occur, but I am searching for a "replacement" logic for these types of scenario. What I believe the "new" logic could be is that since the 13:15 is a BO of Pennant, thus Non Dom, the close inside the range of the previous bar w/ IRV of the 13:20 does not in fact confirm the "dominance" of the 13:15, but continues the Non Dominance. This "non Dominance" is continued to the 13:25 and 13:30 bars and beyond.

Thoughts welcomed and even encouraged

 

[ticktrade]

Again, recognizing the subtle differences (and by the way, this difference isn't so subtle) makes all the difference in the world.

- Spydertrader [/B][/QUOTE]

(I wrote this while at work this afternoon. Just before sending Syder posted his charts. With all the (non)traverses drawn in I figured maybe I should rethink this. Since than, posts have made me decide to let it fly. I have not debriefed tonight yet, so may regret sending this in a bit. NAH...)


You appear to be having so much fun with my posts I thought it would be nice to offer you another oppotunity. I enjoy them, but if given a choice would choose a direct answer due to my current mental condition JK
This my last attempt for a bit. Not giving up, just need to regroup.

1005 is pa and there is no return to red dominance until 1250.
soc at 1340 to long, no more irv after red dominant.
and change back short at 1425 PV.

another note. did not see a warning to exit before up move at eod

 

[guavaman]

Quote from bi9foot:

On a side note, I really need to figure which bar I should use to start my laterals.

This exercise proves trickier than one might think. For instance, it appeared to me a no brainer to have a lateral starting at 10:05 to 10:35, but Spyder's lateral started at 10:25 and lasted to 10:45 which would alter what was dominant and what was non dominant.

 

[ticktrade]

Quote from guavaman:



SOC's clearly did not occur, but I am searching for a "replacement" logic for these types of scenario. What I believe the "new" logic could be is that since the 13:15 is a BO of Pennant, thus Non Dom, the close inside the range of the previous bar w/ IRV of the 13:20 does not in fact confirm the "dominance" of the 13:15, but continues the Non Dominance. This "non Dominance" is continued to the 13:25 and 13:30 bars and beyond.

Thoughts welcomed and even encouraged [/B]

Guava, that is the way I saw it at the time. I had return of red dominance at 1335 with change at 1340, no more irv. JMHO but WTFDIK