Not wanting to get too metaphysical, Spyder, I do appreciate that my hypothesis is not based in reality simply due to the fact that there were a number of bars (81-22 = 59) which followed after bar 22. If on the other hand you are saying that there could never be an end of day which looked like the collection of bars enclosed by the pair of parallel lines leading up to bar 22, followed by a large gap up the following AM, that would be something else. If that is what you are saying, then why is that so? TIA lj
Tums' sighs result from his effort to remain cordial in light of the fact that I have repeatedly described the constuction of tapes, traverses and channels, and still, you post questions which indicate, to the casual observer, a failure to comprehend, or a failure to follow directions. Tums has chosen to restrain himself - perhaps out of a sense of decorum - in an effort to get you to 'see' that you failed to follow advice provided long ago - and did so - while stating you, "believe no one path exists." Rather than pleasantries, I choose instead to use a 2 by 4. The thing to which you refer doesn't receive a name because of the time of day in which the market constructed it. The thing to which you refer, the market built, out of tapes, and as such, has a name called a traverse. The market constructs channels (Red Thick Lines) out of traverses - nothing else. Be clear. You need to set aside that which you think you know and learn to monitor correctly. This isn't about nomenclature. This isn't about how you believe things to be. This is about how things are. - Spydertrader
Thank you Spyder for your comments. The casual observer (?Tums) would be wrong. As to my statement about there being no 'single path', I'll stand by that. I appreciate that this is not about nomenclature and said so above. The 'thing' (sounds like a bad sci-fi flick -and yes I can be a straight man) being built 'solely' of tapes would mean then that the 'orange' 2-3 lateral movement (bars 13-18] is not the sought after second movement but rather a tape expansion and this is so because no traverse level signal for change had been given. I did not do a bar to bar analysis when I constructed that 'thing' and had I done that, the 'thing' would not have been discussed. It is an abomination and I have removed the thought of it from my ID chart. If I should ever do that sort of thing again I will have myself strapped to a chair and be forced to listen to a random combination of disco music and astral Q/A's. So then the first movement (I like that word - really - it's very non-confusing to me) did not end until bar 27 where the market must have given a traverse level signal for change. The reason (and I might say the only reason) that I know this to be so is because I can see the proximal end of the RTL - ho, ho, ho. I am reminded of Jack's saying that most of what he does during the day is "Hold = Continue". lj
Which bar constitutes a pt 3 confirmation of the red down traverse(second traverse of the day) and the pink down traverse. I have a lateral forming starting at the 11:15 bar. Is it the 11:40 bar that confirms the pt 3 of the pink down traverse?? The trouble I'm having is understanding why in real time at 11:15 end of bar this isn't the pt 3 of the purple channel. Is it because the lateral forms next? or because I am beginning the channel too early in terms of Guassians or neither? Anyways this is how I had it annotated without looking at anything first.
Looking at your chart I can't see time, volume, date. So finding the bar that you're referring to presents a formidable challenge to anybody who is willing to take the time and respond. I can't see anything on that pic that would help me identify bar numbers or times. Did you put an arrow pointing to the area in question? Did you look at Spydetrader's charts? If you haven't why not? Thoroughly annotating chart can be time and energy consuming, if you have ever seen Spydertrader's charts and tried to replicate them. And if one does try, one would notice that there are things that are missing from your chart compared to how he annotates. Like numbers indicating where points 1, 2 and 3 are. He has posted his chart today and I am pretty sure he is not creating them because he's got nothing better to do with his time. Why not cheat and look at Spydertrader's chart first? HTH. P.S. I honestly can't answer your question because I don't understand it.
I do that I always compare over and over again once I do a rough annotation of what I think it is on my own. I compare to Spyders charts all the differences and try to figure out why its different. This is how I see it. The black circle is the BO of the pink lateral movement I have labeled, but since increased red does not follow and it goes into another lateral movement there is no traverse yet. Then the bright blue squared circled bar breaks the next lateral movement that formed and the yellowed circled bar is the increased red volume we need after the lateral BO to confirm the light purple traverse's pt 3. Thus pt 3 is the bright blue squared circled bar and not the black circled bar.
I regret posting those. Obviously I assumed that you have not seen them. In attempt to be helpful and supportive I missed the fact that your questions were directed specifically to Spydertrader and it is him you were looking to engage in conversation. To avoid any further embarrassment I shall refrain myself from meddling in other people business. As a side note, it's a generally accepted courtesy to abide to the definitions used by the presenter to convey his findings. This concept should not be foreign to somebody who is as witty and linguistically eloquent as you are, as displayed by your responses to other participants here. You don't need to respond to me, as doing so would be waste of your time, just like writing this is a waste of mine. Good luck.
[/quote] I know its a traverse I mess up the words sometimes cause Im used to saying channel all the time for anything that has parallel lines. Replace the channels in my question with traverses. In your post you said if the traverse fulfills all of definition 1(i.e. 3 separate bars for pts 1 2 and 3 with increased volume after point 3)BUT the increased volume is from a formation or pennant BO without providing more increased dominant volume after the BO, then it is not a traverse [/quote] you are referring to my post. you need to find it and post it or quote it. when you do, read it again.i don't remember saying that as it would be obviously not correct