Iterative Refinement

And who came up with this example originally?

I think a misinterpretation of what Jack wrote has crept in. As I read it, he says start over after outside bars.

 

This is Spyder's convention - which indeed may well be different to Jack's.

 

from this thread in case somebody interests
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132707&perpage=6&pagenumber=19

 

To the relief of all and the joy of many, some time ago I shifted my incoherent ramblings to another thread, “Adventures …”. The recent discussion about OB’s shows how long time practitioners of the method can disagree about the meaning of something they have read and I feel compelled to reappear, if only briefly. The Jews have a fine tradition of discussing the true meaning of the Torah which manifests itself in the Talmud and Tosafat. In that spirit, another thought on the OB.

The OB resets things that have past before. At times it is a dramatic reset - a reversal of trend whether it be a tape, a traverse or a channel trend. On occasion it introduces a formation. Other times it is even less eye-catching and may simply expand the boundaries of, for example, a tape, with preservation of the ongoing trend. When it does something like the latter, the reset of the boundaries of the tape often produces one of the many types of fftraverses. On more than one occasion I have seen an OB wipe out what appeared to be a developing completion.

With respect to drawing “to” or “from” an OB, if you look closely at Spyder’s 2-3-09 chart, it is my opinion that there is no disconnect whatsoever between his renderings and those put forth by Jack (see nkhoi’s post above). We all appreciate that there is a huge contextual component with respect to correctly interpreting what the OB is ‘saying’. The market will quickly tell us whether the funny, little lines we have drawn to or from an OB had or have any basis in reality.

lj

 

Except Jack says "start over" not carry over the line from the pre-OB bar and he doesn't clone a ltl in his illustration. So that is a disconnect.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. The market will indeed let you know if you have correctly identified points 1,3 and 2 of the movement under consideration. The order of arrival - 1, 2 then 3 - is important, IMO (another grey area, I think, from the previous thread).

As I posted my question I was also struck by the parallels of scholars debating The Word. Good to see some wry humour around the place.

The thing is Jack could simply clarify what he meant by case 4, hopefully he will. As I recall, he once introduced the mechanically drawn divergent tape example as a deliberate mistake to illustrate you had to wait for the next bar to have a tape with a valid rtl. If it was humour, I missed that too. Unfortunately I can't find the post where he first put up 2 bar tape construction examples (not the more recent "Cases") and I have tried the Search function with various permutations of Hershey-speak.

Imagine the trouble the world would be in if man's interpretation of God's will was this ambiguous.

 

FWIW, I think of OB's as 2 bars... and taping TO an OB (at times) allows one to keep the tapes tighter (observed at points of change and/or acceleration of pace). I also observe that OB's are special in that they tend to show up on the scene as both completion and change of some fractal OR as completion of a sequence AND as a continuation signal. I interpret Jacks "start-over" comment as meaning we reset the MODE and are looking for 1 of 2 of these outcomes following OB formations.

 

Yesterday's PFC was, as expected, incorrect - tape drawing/fanning requires further differentiation

 

Same opinion here - two bars in one. Two set of tapes, one set does 'something' and has a certain 'meaning' within the overall context, the other represents nothing but two parallel lines. Differentiation and a healthy dose of critical thinking is required, which I don't claim to be fully capable of

 

This is what you were looking for:

 

Here is the followup: