Iterative Refinement
- Thread starter Spydertrader
- Start date
.. 1220 when the charting software stamps the beginning of the bar, 1225 when it stamps its end Roman
Start of day friday. Did you begin fresh or have a sequence you carried over?
I came into the open in a sequence repeat mode, so was looking for drv tape and ibv tape. 10:00 bar looked like repeat again, the 10:15 PV IBGS caused me to change to short but with lack of certainty had to respect both sides. I was not in a live trade but would not have stayed short after the 10:35 bar. The following dec blk gaus and LOC would have put us back on the same track. The multilevels of monitoring in these situations keep one from being on the wrong side for very long. JMHO
I haven't figured out yet how to apply the sequence carryover consistently. Theoretically one anticipates the completion of that which hasn't been finished the day before, but anticipating the matter in which the completion may develop is above my pay grade.
First three bars of the day are all increasing red, but contained within two opposite tapes. Of all the limited choices we have available, /R is the only one that logically fit. The up tape which follows is clearly B2B. The resulting /R B\/B sequence left me no choice but to call 1015 p2 of 'something' after 1025 breaks the up tape. That 'something' appears to be 5 min ES level traverse, since 1050 is clearly return to dominance after pen BO. Perhaps one should have anticipated the completion of 5 min ES level traverse which began yesterday, but the gaussians would not let me place the completion of yesterday's sequence on 1015 bar.
Going short on a tape break 945 didn't seem like a good idea to me , since I didn't see a 5 min ES level traverse completed the day before. 955 tape break was inside 6.75 pt pennant, which is more than I can stomach. 1025 was clearly beginning a p2 to p3 retrace, which eliminated itself from consideration automatically. And since I don't trade p3's - I passed on 1045 bar as well. So, it was an unusually quiet and uneventful morning for me.
IMO, one cannot know how the sequence completion is going to take place with the carryover or at any other time. So it becomes a question of waiting to see it unfold. If there are people who can reproducibly (= every time) know how the sequence completion is going to take place then that's great but I don't think it's a 'tool' that needs to be acquired as part of the method.
lj
Addendum: If what you are saying romanus is that we can leave a sequence incomplete and start a new one (and I don't think that is what you are saying) then clearly that is wrong. Although ehorn and I don't agree on everything we agree on that statement completely. Sometimes the completion may not be easily seen but it has to be there.