Quote from dkm:
In this example, no pennant was formed, although one might suggest that an FBP was formed just prior to the 14:30 bar close.
As one looks at the forming bar and 'sees' a Pennant Forming, one need not have concern. In this particular example, you have an uptrend with a Volatility Expansion followed by (what appears to be in real time) a Pennant Formation, up until just before the close of the bar (where Price tics lower). Forget Volume for just a moment. If Price is headed one way, and then, shows an entirely opposite direction (tape to tape), certainly we can agree,
this constitutes
change. In this example, you may not have known until very late in the bar (realtime Price looked to form a Pennant then near the end, ticked lower), but such events are not
always the case (one could say [if trading the tapes] that Price broke the up tape we had change, but that lesson involves trading further down the rabbit hole). One often knows much sooner than just before the close of the bar. Look at it this way: If your goal is to trade 'Forest Level' resolution, then why fret over
Intra-bar entry?
First look for change.
Then determine what kind of change.
Quote from dkm:
Using just the ES chart and prv, at what point do you see change and why?
Again, let's not worry when I see change, but focus instead on when you
should see change. Again,
in this example (See attached) everyone should recognize
change based on a change in direction (tape to tape). Now, when Price breaks the low of the previous bar
and has a lower high than the previous bar
and you know you had an up trend, then
certainly down marks a
change from up. As a result, the last moment one should have
known change exists (in
this example) is when Price broke the low of the previous bar.
Quote from dkm:
Rightly or wrongly, I see "every time, without a doubt, you can always see it, never a mistake change" only when I see a change of direction of increasing volume.
Try it without looking at volume for a moment. Change is Change. No qualifiers attached. No context. Volume and channels add the context.
Quote from dkm:
Prior to that, imho, it could be just a flaw.
Again, we aren't trying to determine what
type of change we have. Flaws still represent a change - albeit a short term one. If one has difficulty determining the differences between continuation and change, one need not work to determine what
kind of change. One needs to focus on whether change exists or not. After mastering this skill,
then move onto determining what type of change exists.
This is where we add context to determine what type of change we have.
I hope you find the above helpful.
- Spydertrader
