Thursday's chart. I show two major down channels on the chart. I had doubts whether to fan upwards the point 3 of the first down channel (red color) into the second down channel's point 3 (brown color) or keep as it is and draw thick gaussians for each channel separately.
Firstly a minor correction. The thick red 'channel' line on the 12:45 bar (15:45 EST) is an artifact of my attempt to position the "3" in the down channel over the appropriate bar. Please disregard. For three days now it appeared to me that my price annotations were correct. Looking at what other folks posted last PM, it also appeared that a significant number ended up where I did last PM with a completed downchannel and the start of the first leg of a new upchannel. No one else said this and so my statement is based on what I am 'reading' off their charts. All appeared to be going well this AM and I annotated a 'chubby' uptape with a reversal into a chubby downtape at 9:50 EST. Then at 11:00 EST the downtape broke yesterday's intraday low of 676.25 and called into question, in my mind, the assignments of the previous three days. I have seen this sort of thing happen before and ES always leads the break. Such was the case this AM with YM not following suit until the 11:06 bar. Sometimes YM does not follow suit. One way to 'fix' the problem is to say that what I thought was a chubby uptape this AM was in fact a completed upchannel. For a number of reasons that makes no sense. A second and more obvious explanation is that my annotation of a completed downchannel was incorrect. If this is so then from my reading of what other people posted, they also misannotated. That there should errors due to missing critical components of "M" is certainly not without precedent. Seeing as things started moving down yesterday, it seems like a good day to start the search for the error(s). As I write this I see that price continues to head south setting new lows for both ES and YM. This would strongly, dare I say incontrovertibly, suggest that option 2 is in play and so I will not clutter things up by constructing an Occam's option 3. If other posters can see where I and/or they screwed up and have an alternative construction, post facto or otherwise, I would appreciate hearing what they have to say. As I have said many other times, the object of the exercise is to eventually get it right, not to always be right. lj
Error 1: The 12:15 EST bar does not demonstrate a return to dominance and thus there can't be a traverse level change signal associated with it. lj
Can anyone explain if/why on the 15:30 ibgs bar we have permission to seek change? To me it appears that it's still in a lateral movement. (we do have 2 bars outside a formation, but the first above and the second below the formation...) -- thanks innersky