I started the down tape with 1325 bar which breaks the previous tape. I fanned it to include 1335 and 1340 bars. 1350 creates VE and I accelerated the tape. 1400 closes inside the accelerated tape and I fanned it out (decelerated) to include it. 1405 closes on the RTL of the tape (meaning inside, since it failed to breach it). That makes 1410 only one bar out and I don't have a retrace to break the original tape's RTL (your first black line). Therefore 1350 is only a p2 of the ff traverse. I missed that in real time even though I had the same annotations. 1410 is only one bar out and there is no tape to form a retrace which would break the black line you drawn. Everything I described above leads me to believe that at 1420 I only have a ff traverse ( since it lacks something which would make it a 5 min ES level) At 1425 the market is no longer moving down. What I had before is ff traverse and I know that 1350 can't be p2 of the 5 min ES level traverse. Since the market is no longer continuing down on increased volume after 1425 I am concluding that there was a change in that ff down traverse. After a few pennants i begin an up tape for a p2 to p3 retrace of the 5 min ES level traverse. IMO that retrace can be of lesser or equal value in terms of fractal units - it could be a ff up traverse or a tape. I see no possible way to annotate that tape other than b2b on faster level gaussians. Which means that regardless of that this retrace turn out to be ( tape or ff traverse) I am still expecting r2r on faster level gaussians when the price resumes its down trend. And as you can see, the down tape which I started on 1500 bar because it broke the accelerated up tape (containing 1450 and 1455 bars) - that down tape has r\/r and b\/r in it on a faster level gaussians. For a 5 m ES level fractal I believe there's only a few ways in which change can manifest itself: jokari decreasing volume, jokari increasing volume closing inside the prev bar ( incl IBGS), some varieties of OB's, peak volume, and simply lack of continuation . Once the sequence is completed any of the above ends it. Since we are dealing with sequences on several levels: channel->traverse-> ff traverse(tape), I believe the reason why 1520 wasn't change (due to lack of continuation) had to do with b2b on the up tape (1440-1455) and mandatory r2r as price transitions back into down trend, which leads to b\/r as consequence of having r2r. So, the sequence for a down traverse was completed on 1525 bar and there was a permission to seek change, next bar was change due to lack of continuation. Because 1530 was change and p1 of up traverse.
Since I was spot on in last nights PFC, I thought an encore attempt is appropriate I don't see an SOC since 15:30, but 15:35 is at the end of a channel so any reason to reverse is good enough. Also with the up move beginning at 15:30, it looks like we are forming a Pt2 of an up traverse w/ the 16:00 bar as the SOC (of the down channel). If so we expect a Pt3 up to form in the a.m. However, it could also be a large retrace and we need to wait for a return to down dominance and then an SOC before we enter long. It's more like PFC(2)
I believe your blue up traverse in the AM is totally accurate. 1045 dom gives us dominance for p2, and 1150 returns dominance into traverse.
I agree. But I would humbly pose a follow-up. What fractal is it? ... a 5M? ... a FF? ... a "Goat"? ... and why must it be?
Thank you very much romanus for your thoughts. They have given me new ways to think about this stuff. The B2B question had more to do with the placement of the signal than its presence. If I put on my Gaussian wizard's hat, I can conjure up a series of B2B's for the 'blue' tape, the 'fat' tape and the traverse. The 'bar sequences' of the area between 15:00 and 15:25 has screwed with more people than I want to think about. If we forget about the lateral did the IRV on the 15:05 bar confirm? Or was it the IRV on the 15:15 or 15:25 bars that confirmed? The IRV at 15:05 was followed by a further trough so perhaps that's why it didn't confirm there. There is no signal for change on the 15:15 bar so perhaps although it confirmed the P3, it was converted to a pennant by the next bar, so for sure a hold short. Which brings us to the 15:25 bar which has IRV but it is a pennant BO bar and is thus nondom. The 15:30 bar is also nondom but it is a signal for change. So is that how this is to be understood? I have two other rambling explanations but will spare all of you the misery of reading them. Besides, Spyder says it's fractal Gaussian cycling that explains the whole thing and that seems entirely more pithy than anyhting I might have to say. Iit sure looks like we have a bottom and with the IBV > IRV on the 16:00 - 16:05 pair, even more so. To my eye if one snugs up the RTL from 15:30 on, we have your basic 'fat' tape which says we are looking for a P2 for the up traverse in the AM. On the other hand if all this stuff is just crap (when has that ever happened?) then I'm in the guava's boat and have a comparable plan B. FWIW my chart for today looks like innersky's. By having the P3 for the up traverse where it is, it gets it out of being rather high in the down traverse and more into Jack's little yellow triangle. lj
IMO, The sequence completes at 15:05 (w/o consideration to the lateral) then the tape takes us home (icing on the cake... so to speak). A bold trader may have taken 15:30 (It was the bar). But a prudent reversal was 15:35 (IMO). All times Eastern and [close-of] bar.
Hmm. That was my other explanation for dealing with that nasty little spot, ehorn. I also agree with you that a bold trader would have taken the Type I JW at 15:30 and then we're off to the races again. As a clarification, my chart does not have all the laterals that innersky's does but the various 1,2,3's, I agree with. So dammit, as romanus says, the AM should find us looking for a P2 up and as always the fun will be to see how the market presents that. As Spyder intimates there are a finite number of ways they can do it. lj
If you would, please tell me, which bar confirms the first PT3 traverse (as annotated by innersky)? And also, given our knowledge of the relevence of laterals (where appropriate) with regards to the 5M fractal. Can you still call this first traverse a 5M fractal?