This is not a thread about Jack's or spydertrader's or their methods' merits. This is a thread started by llIHeroic, with his intentions stated in his opening post. Most of the recent posts are just the usual trolling. Please take your further discussion somewhere else! Let other people be!
Surf They are doing their own thing - in their own thread - and not bothering anyone else Why not let them explore in peace RN
Hi midtown, in your Tape2, the BBT2 doesn't look like it FTTs. Does it? It looks like it ends on a VE. If so, that might mean it's demoted & your Tape1, Tape2 & Tape3 are all just Tape1. I purposely didn't look at my charts b/c I wanted to take this thing as it is w/out foresight benefit. Although it looks like maybe bars 7 & 8 could make a case as a BBT2 in real-time (if we aren't concerned about weighting of the BBTs). Yet, that gets foiled because BBT1 can't end (would be Pt2 of the up tape) until our Pt2 is outside the prior tape RTL. That makes me think all of that is a down Tape. What do you think?
I can easily understand reluctance to expend currency, mental or otherwise without some sort of proof of benefits. I am the same way. But I trust my own experience to provide sufficient evidence when no empirical proof is forthcoming.
Heroic, couple questions for you: VEs and trendlines, acceleration vs not. Context for my questions... when a bar is a VE and the close of the VE bar isn't outside the existing RTL and also not on incr vol, you (and all of us) will clone the existing LTL and attach it to the bar that VE'd. When the VE bar closes outside the existing LTL and is on IV, instead of duplicating, we'll create new TLs and steepen with a new pseudo-pt1 at whatever location in that container is as far back as geomtry will allow us to begin redrawing our TLs. Agreed? Are there other circumstances under which you'll accelerate, aside from the above close ITZ (in the zone, meaning outside the LTL on IV)? What about this combo? Will you accelerate when you have "a VE bar, then at any subsequent point in the container you get another 'dominant bar' "? Or would you not redraw accelerated (steepened) TLs for that combo? Maybe a higher level way to ask this question is, VEs by definition "expand" a container... but are there situations in which you don't get a ITZ but you still accelerate (tighten) a container involving having gotten a VE bar? This topic could relate to my previous question about a Tape or Traverse running-on versus ending (in real time, very hard to know) and how we know. Accelerating w/out a valid reason could create too many potential FTTs, so I'm curious what circumstances cause you to accelerate vs just typical VE 'expansion'. Here's a visual example. Would you accelerate (pink TLs), or not (turquoise TLs)? If you would accel, specifically why?
Tape 2 was/is very confusing and I think I might draw it a little differently now. At bar 9 FC3 upgrades to BBT1. At bar 19 BBT1 upgrades to tape 2 by virtue of the implied ibv because the FC3 gets BO by the OB. Tape 2 now has complexity equal to tape 1 so we qualify for P3 of a traverse. Annotating bars 11 through 19 in this way (completely new for me) I think produces an ftt at bar 19, which does not surpass P2. But P2 does fall outside tape 1 if you consider bar 8 as little p3. Does this make sense? I'm not clear what you see as ending on a VE.
Thanks, I think I see what you mean. Maybe we can compare notes via PMs also. But bars 11-15 I don't see a FTT, which is BBT2 of your up tape, right? Bar 15 looks like a VE (it touches the BBT2 LTL, doesn't it?) You require 3 BBTs to form a Tape, I assume, and each BBT has to FTT. So, it looks like you have a good BBT1, but then no FTT on BBT2 which means that whole up move is a BBT... which might then mean you have no Tape2 & the whole move is just Tape1 instead of a down Traverse? Or don't you require your BBTs to FTT? As far as IBV or IRV in general, I'm not too clear on that because such cases would occur extremely frequently in real-time if we're going to differentiate that & make trading decisions on it. On static charts, I can fully see how it is identified as being a valid ending & why. But in real time, would we really go short on IBV as a FTT? On that chart, the down volume is pretty lame until it's potentially too late (because a lot of tapes don't go as far down as your tape3 did). Unless one is simply playing the RTL break, as an entry signal but if so... why would we do that when volume looks lame? I know it's always an unknown when we enter, but you see what I mean?
I see that, but if you mean the whole up tape as b2b2r2b, the b2b is within the prior tape's RTL. No issue with that? And what about containers for the up tape, don't care... you only see the need for b2b2r2b, don't need 3 BBTs for the up tape, each having its own FTT?