Thanks Spyder for your comments and answers. I have added a couple of points in green. If I might say, the 'T/T/C - 1,23" paradigm is truly a wonderment. lj
OK Ive been goin over it for the last hour and I see the two situations as identical. They both break out of a pt 3 up traverse on decreased red volume then form a pennant then break out of the pennant on increased red volume. Then the increased red volume turns to decreased red volume. Again I believe in the system but I feel like I'm taking crazy pills right now because the situations look like mirror images. If anyone else wants to step in and tell me what I am missing here....feel free
There is one difference which I notice after the fact. One starts from an FTT of the pt 3 up traverse. The other starts from a flat top pennant at the end of the up pt 3 traverse. Is this correct?
If I haven't annotated it as an FTT, then, what you see on the chart, isn't an FTT. I know (and so should you) in real time (in other words, not because of what develops later with subsequent bars) that the market hasn't signaled change just yet. Since an FTT represents nothing more than a vocabulary word used to describe a specific point of change at a specific point in time, then without change one cannot have an FTT. Congrats, you just located one of those subtle differences I often harp on about. - Spydertrader
Certainly, you played the game as a kid, where, a magazine places two pictures (side by side) and asks the reader to circle the differences in the pictures? Perhaps, such a skill would benefit you now. - Spydertrader
As Sidney Harris, the long-standing cartoonist for the periodical, "American Scientist", 'remarked' in one of his better efforts, "Do you think you could be a little more specific?" Perceived nuances of context are to be noted and tested. Blind application of the Jokari window, or worse, retrospective application of the Jokari window, speaks to nothing of consequence. Of course I am not saying that you did this, only you know whether or not you did, but rather that when the Jokari window is proferred as an explanation for an unusual occurence, e.g., an FTT without a VE or a 'classical' flaw, that unless it can be shown that the application of whatever construction was used to formulate said explanation is binary, then said explanation needs to be noted and tested. It may well be that unbeknownst to me there is such a binary construct but by its very nature, the Jokari window does not speak to the third degree of freedom, which is time. Experience allows one to be able to say certain things with some conviction. So when Spyder says, "Perhaps, the previous bar ...." without a question mark, I do appreciate that this may be a rhetorical question and that he in fact is in possesion of the aforementioned binary construct. However, since I don't know this, and he hasn't said he does have it, my past experience with rhetorical questions has resulted in me taking the action I mentioned above. It's a MADA kind of thing (really). Which reminds me. Jack's stuff on neuroplasticity is too cool and although one needs to be very careful when interpreting what fMRI appears to be saying, Grafman's stuff is cutting edge and worthy of attention. I await with excitement his next installment. I'm going night-nights now and hope that you too have a sound and restful sleep. Ciao, lj