Thanks Jander. I also get messed up when there is a large gap like we had this AM. Trying to 'connect' the previous day's EOD bars generates some funky looking tapes. This is however something that Spyder has done routinely in the past. What is also true is that Spyder has started the day with the 9:35 bar. There is no necessary inconsistency between these two approaches because he has always maintained that we should look in the 'new' day for completion/resolution of what began in the prior day. That said I had a bear of a time trying to reconcile what I thought I saw at EOD yesterday with what developed, annotatively-speaking this AM. The PFC which I posted last PM indicated to me that we had begun the next leg of the current channel following a true peak volume signal at 15:15 and a JW I signal at 15:20. The 'thing' that was being built from 15:15 till EOD looked like a standard traverse to me until the pace acceleration at 16:00. That, again to me, said that I should expect to see a fftraverse and that a range expansion beyond the 15:35 high should not be looked on as a channel VE. However I'm still left with deciding whether the RTL (the dark blue one) formed by connecting the 15:20 and 15:55 lows is still the valid RTL for the uptraverse or is it something else, like the one which I drew. I think it is the second one (the lighter blue one). FWIW, the YM pace acceleration analysis indicated that the 12:00 ES bar did not represent a traverse change signal, as did the 11:55 pace acceleration signal. I know that some of you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and please stay that way because this may all be confused gibberish. On the other hand there are some who do know at least what I'm trying to say but I could be wrong there. I also appreciate that there are 'better' ways to look at this and that's where I'm trying to get to. lj
Are you guys all nuts here? What are those thousands of lines and other "decorations" for? You guys must spend pretty much ALL DAY to draw up those art works, lol. No time for trading......seriously, are you guys really ok or possibly on some medication?
actually it doesn't take much time to draw one you get the hang of it. That's the most asked question btw.
cool, my sincere apologies, I did not put in the time to flip through the 1900 pages to find the answer to this question ;-)
FWIW, I think today was a single, trending uptraverse which does not yet show sequence completion. It makes sense to have an uptraverse after an uptraverse-downtraverse pair has occurred within the overall context of an upchannel. If indeed this is the case, then one CANNOT have channels inside the traverse. On the other hand if the upchannel idea is bogus and instead one has a mess of channels inside a developing super-channel, then one can of course have a bunch of channels today. Spyder's chart of 2-3-09 shows, IMO, 5 traverses in the upchannel which he drew. So it would seem that one can have more than the up-down-up threesome of traverses when building an upchannel. However I don't recollect ever seeing him draw a channel inside a traverse. So that would be my answer to gucci's question about why are channels necessary. They provide needed context and allow us to keep track of the traverses. Most times it's pretty easy to see a traverse but sometimes it isn't. A final point. If one starts annotating with the 9:35 bar, I think it is crucial to relate the annotation to the prior day in order to preserve context. On the other hand if one trades chubby tapes and fftraverses perhaps it doesn't matter. I don't know. Maybe someone else could shine some light. lj