Iterative Refinement

Quote from ljyoung:


Aside from looking like a 'naked' spike bar, the 14:55 IBGS bar could also be considered as part of a lateral movement beginning at 14:50 - a 'clothed' spike bar if you will.

[/B]
More...
A. let me throw this thought out there: an ibgs bar was a spike at some point, after which it became an IBGS. (once the close went lower than the open). Me thinks these situations can't be treated as spike. Seems somewhat logical that if something (X) was something else (Y) before it became something (X), then that something can not be something else which it was before it became something.
B. After seeing Spydertrader proving a point that one doesn't need anything else (no vocabulary words whatsoever) other than tapes and gaussians (annotated correctly) I quit laterals cold turkey.
C. I think the reason for 1455 being p2 lies in gaussians. "Everything" until 1420 (when we get RTL BO) is considered non-dom and as such is annotated with \b. This 'everything' is built from 3 tapes: up down and up. The the dominant part of the gaussian (/b, terminating at p2) should be also built from 3 tapes.

BTW guava's reproduction of Spydertrader's chart is not correct.
 
Quote from romanus:

A. let me throw this thought out there: an ibgs bar was a spike at some point, after which it became an IBGS. (once the close went lower than the open). Me thinks these situations can't be treated as spike. Seems somewhat logical that if something (X) was something else (Y) before it became something (X), then that something can not be something else which it was before it became something.
B. After seeing Spydertrader proving a point that one doesn't need anything else (no vocabulary words whatsoever) other than tapes and gaussians (annotated correctly) I quit laterals cold turkey.
C. I think the reason for 1455 being p2 lies in gaussians. "Everything" until 1420 (when we get RTL BO) is considered non-dom and as such is annotated with \b. This 'everything' is built from 3 tapes: up down and up. Then the dominant part of the gaussian (/b, terminating at p2) should be also built from 3 tapes.

BTW guava's reproduction of Spydertrader's chart is not correct.
More...

A. I was not aware romanus, that a spike bar could not be an IBGS bar based on my understanding of the definition of a spike bar, which definition you extracted from Spyder: "Try using Price comparing Close and Open to the High or Low. In other words, Close closer to the Open than to the High, or close closer to the Open than it is to the Low." If you are saying that the two cannot occur together then can you show me where you got that information? This is a request not a challenge.

B. Spyder also said at one time that, "... everything is either tapes or laterals." I think that both are correct. The Gaussians are more elegant.

C. I believe that guava's annotation of the mid-AM to mid-PM down traverse is correct, that your nondom tape 'count' is correct, that your dom tape count is correct and that the 'transition point' between nondom and dom is correct.

What I was not aware of was that there was a complementarity (if that is the word to use to describe this phenomenon) between a collection of dom and nondom tapes. Certainly there is precedent for such a thing, e.g., on the '5 min ES traverse" fractal, we have a dom-nondom-dom triplet of traverses combining to give us a channel.

Your analysis of the tape count phenomenon is, I know, careful and considered. Do you think this analysis is rigorous? My guess is that you do and so let me blather no more this evening and instead see if I can find an exception to your proposal (I'm likewise sure that you haev tried to do this yourself but let me have a go anyway). If it is correct, it could be an intermediate trader axiom (if I'm using the word correctly).

Another neat thing is that the 14:55 bar now becomes the clear change bar for a P2 to P3 movement.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say further on the subject.

lj
 
Quote from guavaman:

...
Back to business. he attached was annotated post NYC so I had the benefit of seeing Spyder's chart. At the time I questioned the 14:30 to 14:40 where we had an accelerated "faster fractal traverse" (aka "a goat"). DKM suggested the reason this was not a accelerated Pt3 up traverse making the 14:55 IBGS on increasing volume a true traverse level SOC (disregarding it's other merits of change :) ) was because although we did have tape break on 14:30 and on Spyder's chart a down tape to :35; we didn't have actual decreasing red volume (either as retrace or traverse) that would create the conditions for a traverse to develop later. This seems so simple, elegant and obvious it is no wonder I completely missed it :D. However, before I skip down the road having accepted this as truth, I thought I would get a second (or more) takes on the issue.
...
Guava
More...

FWIW.
 

Attachments

New York was great, fun and educational. Spydertrader showed us what we all allready know... Thank you for that.
I cannot speak for the other attendants, but I learned a lot, and got a few big aha's.
It was great to meet you guys and gals. It's nice to be able to put a face on some of the usernames here.
I hope to meet you all again in November in Las Vegas.

--
innersky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top