Iterative Refinement

[romanus]

Quote from ehorn:

LOL! Looks good to me romanus. That is the PA route and seq completion. So possible bar 4 confirms PT3 and then PA. We run through the P/V sequence with IBV and change signal at the spike. So then the lat becomes irrelevant (in fact misleading) but noting PA is very relevant in this example.

Well, in this particular case even the answer "maybe" will do because the next bar after the spike (not in the drill picture) sends a big jolt to remind that we are experiencing a sentiment shift. I am talking about the type of bar one very rarely sees as not change.

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from teguichilla:

No, missed the tapes and the OBs (so far) - but its still not jumping at me that the obvious is wrong...

Read your post ten times out loud and see if you don't find the answer.

Quote from gooch87:

Here is mine, please give me some feedback...

Way too many tapes, but very thorough.

Slightly off topic, but your future WMCN neglected to account for one additional case.

Quote from Jander:

Please excuse the crude numbering

I'll give ya' a pass on the typo and the 'crude' numbering, but sloppy trend line placement might create an environment where you reach an incorrect conclusion.

Quote from romanus:

drill: I keep seeing PA's everywhere I go even if they are not there.

So far the answer to everything seems to be very clear: "MAYBE"

Then, is your 'Final Answer' maybe or are you hedging?

- Spydertrader

 

[charts]

Quote from Spydertrader:

Another Drill

1. Add full, complete and thorough annotations to the chart.

2. Post completed chart.

3. Identify WMCN and why.

- Spydertrader

... spike is non-dominant, so pt3 isn't confirmed yet

 

[romanus]

Quote from Spydertrader:


Then, is your 'Final Answer' maybe or are you hedging?

The final answer is maybe, unless you open the next card and reveal the bar which follows the last black spike. Otherwise anything other than 'maybe' would be cheating.

 

[romanus]

Quote from charts:

... spike is non-dominant, so pt3 isn't confirmed yet

This is a very big presumption. The one I am no longer willing to entertain after studying some charts. No pun intended.

 

[ehorn]

Quote from romanus:

The final answer is maybe, unless you open the next card and reveal the bar which follows the last black spike. Otherwise anything other than 'maybe' would be cheating.

Is that your new binary maths... Maybe/Maybe Not? lol!

Your drill response gets my vote

 

[romanus]

Quote from ehorn:

Is that your new binary maths... Maybe/Maybe Not? lol!

Your drill response gets my vote

t'was a lucky guess, there's plenty of Gauusian Slope accelerations which aren't PA's - in this case it was. Coin toss. But the real answer is "insufficient data set for my level of experience".

 

[charts]

Quote from romanus:

This is a very big presumption. The one I am no longer willing to entertain after studying some charts. No pun intended.

... presumption based on my understanding of this paragraph

... Bar Six, no doubt, fooled a number of people. Certainly, increasing Volume appears, and as such, one would think both Bar 5 and Bar 6 would then show dominance. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Why? Take a closer look at Bar 6. What at first glance looks to form an an FBO on dominant Volume (similar to Friday Morning), upon closer inspection, the trader can see an example of a Bar which closes a significant distance away from its extreme. bar Six represents a Spike Bar, and we all know what sort of bars they represent. As such, Bar 5 and 6 represent non-dominant bars, and as a result, we have not yet returned to dominance. ...

 

[romanus]

Quote from charts:

... presumption based on my understanding of this paragraph

The context which was described in that post may or may not be different from our drill here depending on whether or not Bar 4 in the drill is PA. If Bar 4 is in fact PA (which I can't tell you because I don't know) then the context you were referring to is definitely different from our drill.

 

[Avi 8]

Quote from charts:

... spike is non-dominant, so pt3 isn't confirmed yet

Congrats!

Yet another incorrect assertion!

How many times you gotta be wrong before you change your handle again?

Quote from charts:

... presumption based on my understanding of this paragraph

Presumption or asumption?

So look at the same paragraph you quoted, note the chart snip, and tell us what the last black bar of the previous day represents? (the black bar prior to the red OB of the previous day) Dominance or Non dominance? Isn't it a 'spike bar' too? Do you have the same context?

Try studying 'charts', instead of just applying a rule set like edgers.