Oh come on, don't recite. Think. Volume peaked in the dominant traverse. We are then in change modus. The FTT comes as anticipated and price breaks the dominant traverse RTL in the non-dom traverse. All that's changed in the last couple of weeks is a new definition of Peak Volume which has never been discussed before. Does it apply to all markets and timeframes (PSLE)?
romanus - I've had to wade through countless pages of your "thinking out loud" and brain farts. The least you can do is respect my turn to ask questions.
Hi P1, The way I view the peak volume question you posed is that Spyder has chosen a particular nomenclature to communicate concepts. As Tums pointed out. Surely Volume peaked on the bar in question. But Spyder has assigned a particular meaning to the term "Peak Volume" and, in the instance in question, it does not meet the conceptual definition. Just as we all understand the concept of FTT (because it has been defined and used consistently), it is expedient to apply the same standards to other terms (in this case PV). EDIT: Now if you and I were sittin' around havin' a beer we could call it peak volume, but for the sake of consistency within the IR thread. I will refrain from using that term (when it does not meet the chosen definition) to avoid confusion.
The name of this thread is Iterative Refinement. Doesn't this presuppose that there be something to refine? What is your expectation from trading? Callmate tells you that you are making it hard on yourself and to keep it simple with FTT and 123. No doubt her expectation is to extract from the ES. I cannot see things through your mind. I do not consider it great advice to say you should trade only the p3 of the first trend of the AM until you've tripled your account. I know from experience that is the best opportunity for extracting. Yet I also know it is too general to make use of as a cure-all. It also smacks of recommending set-up trading, which I am not against, but set-up has a bad rep around here. I would like to think that anyone who can draw lines connecting certain points on price bars, and being attentive enough to then watch price behave within those lines, has the ability to see the market. But seeing the market and then acting to benefit yourself from that seeing are separate steps. We all know there's a comfortable feeling in thinking we're learning something good that will be useful to us at some later point. We can build a lot of faith in it without demonstration. Well, you know the saying: Faith without works is dead. In trading, my take is, "learning" without results is worthless. I think all fretting and displays of frustation at "not getting it" by people here can be sourced to the fact they have no results. Were they to have results, they would have abundant patience with themselves and others even if they couldn't articulate how they do get it. Transference via a message board is hardly ideal. Believe me, even one-on-one, looking over the shoulder, shielding the learner against losses doesn't guarantee it. What I find of keen interest is that some have gotten it through here. Now is that because of the transferor or the transferee? What is the attitude of a person who gets it? What is the expectation of a person who gets it? If you knew how to look for and act on a market phenomenon that occurs at least twice a week, would you focus only on executing that with expertise until you've tripled your account? You might. But a lot won't, simply because their expectation is unmet.
I apologize if you found my comments offensive. They were not meant to be that way, as stated in that post. I am truly sorry. I would delete that post myself if I could. Moderator. Please remove my previous post to PointOne: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2016534#post2016534 as well as this one. Thank you.
I have always found you to be a thoughtful, perceptive poster point one but I must disagree with your point re peak volume (or PeV as I call it here). To discuss something, a set of mutually agreed upon definitions must be in place at the onset. Such definitions should not be considered to be immutable but rather 'working' definitions, which can be improved upon, dumped or left intact as time and testing progresses. It rather obviously helps when everyone involved in the discusison knows what the definition is. So Spyder has one and for the moment I'll use it. As to your other point, IMO, it is a good one and when one looks at the point range of the LM, it's 10 points not 2 points. So the question is would you have done what you suggested doing if the range, hypothetically mind you, was just 2 points? These "Intrafractal Movements" [IFM - Oh goodee another freakin' acronym] are most interesting to me given my developing viewpoint about the ways one can use Spyder's 'Rosetta' which I will not be blabbing about here to the relief of all. Regards, lj
Well exactly. I am testing the definition provided as it makes no sense to me. Do the "impartial friend" and 10 year old test and get back to me. For anyone who hasn't followed thus far we are talking about bar 8: <img src=http://elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2016622>
Otay. Spyder's definition is that peak volume is a condition in which there is a "acceleration of the Gaussian slope". In your case the slope of the bars7-8 volume is clearly decelerating from that in bars6-7. So this triplet of bars fails to meet his definition. Your definition of peak volume I don't know, but it isn't Spyder's (good observation, huh) and it would seem to be somehow involved with being the highest volume of the day or the down traverse or something else. Of course you won't know that till the next bar is in place. On the other hand with Spyder's definition were this to have been a Spyder peak volume, then the signal to expect change would have been in place at EOB or before if one used PRV. There is a further constraint on the use of Spyder's peak volume and that is it must be used in the context of being a traverse-not tape-based signal and he gives an example of that in his chart. Is this correct? Does it have to be constrained like this? He currently believes so and for the moment I'll go with that. Do I consider myself to be bound to his definition in perpetuity? I think you already know that I don't, but that's not of importance. lj
I did not create the defintiion for Peak Volume. As I have said before, operate under the assumption that you did have Peak Volume on the Bar in question. What happens? You have trend overlap on Points Two and Points Three. Trends overlap on Point One. Therefore, the bar in question could not have been Peak Volume, for if it was, you'd have a Point One on that Bar. As a result, you'd violate a basic tenet of the market. In other words, Spydertrader hasn't rendered your hypothesis incorrect. The market did. Use the search function to 'see' what others have posted on trend overlap. HTH - Spydertrader