Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
The working hypothesis for me now is that I am dealing with 4 distinct separate sets of patterns:
(1) PA which develops on single bar,
(2) PA which develops over the course of multiple bars, which may include acceleration of Gaussian slope,
(3) PV which develops after sequence completion as a signal for change,
(4) PV which develops prior to sequence completion and as such is ignored (held through due to incomplete sequence)
Differentiating (2) and (3) seems to be the task I am unable to accomplish.
Quote from Spydertrader:
You don't really think I would have made the solution as simple as downloading some software and looking at how I defined a variable do you?The answer doesn't reside in the code. The answer resides in the charts.
- Spydertrader
Actually no, but at the same time had you wished to, you could have called whatever you called "P" in the software package something else and didn't.
So what I'm attempting to be left with is the previous 'best' definitions of pace acceleration and peak volume, both of which are yours AND then deal with the task of figuring out what each of these critters actually means in so far as answering the question, "Well, when you see PA or PkV what happens?"
The latter exercise has high practical utility as opposed to trying to decide WTF the definitions of PA and PkV are. I agree with you 100% that the answer to the question of what happens when PA or PkV occur, resides in the charts. I also agree that the definitions of PA and PkV reside in the charts but am trying to make them part of the lexicon.
lj
I gotta feed me brain but let me ask you have you ever seen PV (I'll drop the 'k' although I think it is clarifying) provide a change signal for a traverse? If the answer to that is 'no' then since PA has never been dubbed a signal for change, UNLESS the sequence is complete one can safely 'ignore' PV alone or in combination with PA. I put ignore in parentheses because an intrafractal or tape or bar trader might want to trade the 'early' PV +/- PA signal.
If this is correct then the problem becomes one of knowing when the sequence is completed. As I said the other night, your stuff about the presence of PA obliging the trader to wait for another P2 was very helpful to me and if you combine it with the channel-building stuff I was blabbing about it makes the search for completion a lot more facile.
Chicken-fried steak with mushroom gravy and mashed tatties here I come - Texas comfort food at its heart-healthy horriifc best.
lj
No.
No.
A thoroughly, and correctly annotated chart.
- Spydertrader
Quote from ehorn:
When you have a lateral (15:15-15:25), you wait for dominance to confirm. 15:30 was first bar out of lat (wait). 15:35 was DBV and internal (wait) plus it closes above the tape (tape from 14:55-15:00). 15:40 confirms dominance and allows one to seek a signal for change and 15:45 gives us Peak Volume and SOC.
All times Eastern and [close-of] bar
HTH
Actually, in this case, when the ibgs forms, you don't know at this time that a lateral is forming. As far as I know, one must act immediately after a change signal.
I'll rephrase the question.
Since we don't know that a steeper channel is forming, how can we not see this bar as a signal of change? I tend to think here that pt3 has already occured, so I'm on the lookout for a change signal.
--
innersky
Thanks Spyder.
This would suggest to me that Guavaman's rendition was closer to the mark.
For one thing, this illustrates the importance of correct pace lines. On Guavaman's chart, the 13:10 red bar steps up from DU to Low volume, confirming the point 3, whereas on my chart I'm still in VDU territory, and interpreting the increase in volume as noise. I just checked a chart from the source of my PACE lines, and notice that volume levels are significantly higher there.
As regards more thorough annotation, the only things I can think of that could be added to my chart are faster fractal traverses, ibgs bars and level I gaussians.
I'd be very grateful if you could clear up an abiding source of confusion... what provides permission to recycle the last dominant move of the carryover traverse, as the first dominant move of a fresh traverse. The 17th November also comes to mind in this regard.
Best wishes,
Neo
@romanus
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question about PA and posting these links. However, I had seen these posts before and none of them contains a definition what PA actually is.
I HAVE seen a clear definition of 'peak volume', and that is
(Volume[0]-Volume[1]) > Volume[1]-Volume[2]), where Volume[0] is the most recent bar. In other words, an accelerating slope. As far as I can see, this matches exactly with the volumebars that Spyder marks with 'P' on his charts, so no questions there.
However, I see different people calling different things a 'Pace Acceleration' or 'PA'. Some of these definitions involve the pacelines on the volumepane, which in itself is worrying me because there are no definitions for the value of those either. I think Spyder calculates them with some kind of average of the past, others use a fixed value, but as far as I'm aware there is no disclosed common definition of them. That would mean some people will see a PA and some don't. That is not good. We are all studying the same methodology and should therefore get the same results if we do our annotations properly.
In one post a few days ago, a potential Pt3 that to me seemed to have all the properties of a proper Pt3 was invalidated because supposedly a 'Pace Acceleration' happend, and apparently a PA is only supposed to happen when moving from Pt1 to Pt2. So this means a clear understanding of what defines a PA is an essential part of this methodology.
I can't believe that so many dedicated students of this methodology (I can include myself) do not have a common understanding of how to define a PA and what the consequences are should it occur.
So let's get this thing fixed now. I would appreciate if Spyder can say the final word on this.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question about PA and posting these links. However, I had seen these posts before and none of them contains a definition what PA actually is.
I HAVE seen a clear definition of 'peak volume', and that is
(Volume[0]-Volume[1]) > Volume[1]-Volume[2]), where Volume[0] is the most recent bar. In other words, an accelerating slope. As far as I can see, this matches exactly with the volumebars that Spyder marks with 'P' on his charts, so no questions there.
However, I see different people calling different things a 'Pace Acceleration' or 'PA'. Some of these definitions involve the pacelines on the volumepane, which in itself is worrying me because there are no definitions for the value of those either. I think Spyder calculates them with some kind of average of the past, others use a fixed value, but as far as I'm aware there is no disclosed common definition of them. That would mean some people will see a PA and some don't. That is not good. We are all studying the same methodology and should therefore get the same results if we do our annotations properly.
In one post a few days ago, a potential Pt3 that to me seemed to have all the properties of a proper Pt3 was invalidated because supposedly a 'Pace Acceleration' happend, and apparently a PA is only supposed to happen when moving from Pt1 to Pt2. So this means a clear understanding of what defines a PA is an essential part of this methodology.
I can't believe that so many dedicated students of this methodology (I can include myself) do not have a common understanding of how to define a PA and what the consequences are should it occur.
So let's get this thing fixed now. I would appreciate if Spyder can say the final word on this.