You have the correct bars, but the incorrect conclusion. Perhaps, a thoroughly annotated, correctly colored chart might assist your learning. Might I suggest allowing more than a single hour for the solution to come to you. - Spydertrader
traverses and channels ..... I was wrong on 1'st Up traverse misjudging it for a channel...6 traverses and 2 channels
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2008496#post2008496 You asked: My answer, after thinking about it for a while is this: You may be addressing the question: "What constitutes a traverse, and what is not" in a wrong way. After reading some of the comments recently posted by Spydertrader I no longer think that the type of volume that developes at or after pt3 (1. RTL Break 2. Formation BO/FBO 3. Spike Bar) is the factor that determines whether or not it's a traverse or not. Here are those comments: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2014727#post2014727 Based on the above I removed the pink lines annotating non-existent traverse. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2014682 Notice the exact words: "Number 8 isn't a Traverse, as it has no beginning on the Traverse Fractal." In other words, long before the increasing volume at or after possible pt3 developed, the market communicated that pink is not going to be a traverse. Another comment: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2007973#post2007973 I am interpreting that dashed annotations here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2008722 are not traverses either. Again the words used: "there must not have been one to place the trader on the long side" suggest that way before we are looking at possible pt3 the market communicated: no traverse here. In other words in light of these comments I think that, trying to come up with a rule set about how the matter in which pt3 volume developes affects what is traverse and what isn't, would not be the most logical way to proceed here.
In the snippet below I 'fanned' the blue chubby up tape to form the decelerated green up 'movement'. My rationale for doing so was that the blue up was rather steep and overall volume did not seem to drop off very fast. So I chose not to draw the dashed green 'movement'. Had the blue up not been a chubby tape and/or less steep, and/or volume had dropped off more in the lateral, I would have annotated the dashed green 'movement' instead. I would not have annotated both, although they are both seemingly valid 'movements', because context told me not to. <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2014945/> Is this the correct way of thinking? Or should I annotate both, regardless? I'm asking because I don't want to reinforce a way of thinking that I will have difficulties altering in the future. From the posted charts (there are more examples on todays chart, and even more other days) I've noticed we all seem to handle these situations differently. Some draw one, some draw both. EDIT: The blue chubby tape can be drawn as a 1-2-3 'movement' instead (error on my part), but the question remains.
Nice tag team effort Tiki, the message I take away (Not a new one BTW)... Know thy fractal and filter for context Thanks again Spyder.
Excerpt from a Spyder-LittleMac PeV chat: 07-31-08 09:58 PM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from LittleMac: Spyder would I be correct in saying this means that peak volume is evident on the final of the three circled volume bars in my chart because the slope of the fluorescent green bar accelerates over the slope of the fluorescent blue bar. Quote from Spydertrader: 12:20 and 14:00 represent Peak Volume. 14:40 doesnât. Quote from LittleMac: I can see how this is the case in confirming that the 14:00 is peak volume but mathematically I cant understand how the 12:20 IS peak volume and the 14:40 IS NOT Maybe I'm on the wrong bars. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spyder's Comment: You have the correct bars, but the incorrect conclusion. Perhaps, a thoroughly annotated, correctly colored chart might assist your learning. Hmmmm. Well the first thing I think should happen is that LM should ask Spy one more time - just to be sure (heh, heh). On the other hand maybe it's mo' betta to go instead to Romanus' first post on this page: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113310&perpage=6&pagenumber=980 and open the attachment and look at A unt B on the right side of the page. B is the pace increase and A is the peak volume, IMO, and furthermore B looks very much like the bar triplet that Spyder's doesn't refers to. In one case (A) we have a smooth acceleration of the Gaussian slope while in the other we have a 'jump' in pace [it's kind of like a step-function but not precisely so]. I would not take the 'jump' as a signal to reverse as treeline has pointed out. There does appear to be some stuff which happens after a pace increase such as this but that is not of interest here. What is of interest, to me anyway, is Spyder's repeated assertion that peak volume is straightforward - 3 bars showing a an acceleration of the Gaussian slope. lj
I have a hard time correlating sequences from the end of one day to the start of the next day. Perhaps you could provide an answer rather than a question. I'm a little slow at times. morning efforts