Iterative Refinement

Discussion in 'Journals' started by Spydertrader, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. gucci

    gucci

    I didn't mean to be rude, ljyoung.

    I'm just getting a hunch, that the very absence of such clear and unequivocal corrections you alluded to is supposed to be conducive to your heading in the right direction.
     
    #10151     Dec 11, 2008
  2. This was added while I was responding to your initial response. We actually do have some Spyder definitions for 'all the stuff in between traverses and tapes' and by inference, for tapes and traverses. So if a faster fractal, sub-fractal, and intra-fractal traverse = fft, sft, ift = all the stuff in between traverses and tapes, then he has said http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2203447#post2203447, as PTV has noted, that the other stuff is what he calls a "wide tape". He didn't say a chubby tape. He has also said http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2215864#post2215864 that anything less than a traverse should, by implication, cover all the varieties of stuff in between a tape and a traverse. So if the 'stuff' is in between a chubby tape and a traverse, then since we already have the definition of a chubby tape (and a tape) what we're left with is the definition of a traverse.

    As I mentioned last PM, Romanus has suggested that one of the characteristics of the 'stuff' is that after the P3 of the 'stuff' has been 'made', there is no return to dominance. This sounds contradictory since if a P3 isn't confirmed then how can it be a P3? So maybe it's a pseudo-P3 and what's that? It's a P3 that doesn't go on to complete a sequence.

    So perhaps if the P3 isn't really a P3, then the P2 which came before the phony P3 is also a fake. So why should that be and is there any way we can figure that out?

    I'm tired of writing so if you (or anyone else) want(s) to do something to help this effort along, why don't you draw up everything you think you know about what a traverse is . Let me start things out by saying that this: / is not a traverse, where / is a collection of bars greater than 2, i.e., a tape or greater.

    lj
     
    #10152     Dec 11, 2008
  3. Hey gucci, zero offense taken and even if you were offending me, which I know that you're not, who cares. See my post just before this one.

    lj
     
    #10153     Dec 11, 2008
  4. gucci

    gucci

    Yes, I'm very slow in my thinking. Thank you for pointing that out.

    I think, I' ve done a pretty good job with tapes and traverses without getting any reasonable feedback from those in the know.

    Edit: You know already, I'm really slow. If you want to see some evidence for the incongruence between the definitions and annotations that follow those definitions, let me know.

    Good trading to you.
     
    #10154     Dec 11, 2008
  5. I was not pointing out that you were slow in your thinking but simply that you edited your post while I was writing a response to it. That's all. So why don't you (or anyone else) post what you think you know about tapes and traverses? BTW, I am most assuredly not one of those in the know, but then you already know that. However what I am trying to do is to figure this sucker out, so we're in the same boat

    lj

    Edit: Post the incongruencies and perhaps we'll both learn something.
     
    #10155     Dec 11, 2008
  6. `

    Please post a specific question and we can go from there.
     
    #10156     Dec 11, 2008
  7. gucci

    gucci

    Your wish will be granted. :) Thank you guava.
     
    #10157     Dec 11, 2008
  8. ehorn

    ehorn

    My view of the day...
     
    #10158     Dec 11, 2008
  9. tobbe

    tobbe

    ES for today.

    Feed problems all day threw me off more than once. No excuse for sloppy annotations, I know, but still. :D
     
    #10159     Dec 11, 2008
  10. My chart for the afternoon. I included some notes on how I saw it unfold.
     
    #10160     Dec 11, 2008