You're on a roll Mr B! You must be on a polyphasic sleep schedule with the instruments you follow... -Au
Spyder, Hope your island vaco was a winner. With the hope that you are feeling magnanimous this AM, a couple of questions: 1. To kill a LM or LF requires 2 closes outside the boundary. Do the closes have to be sequential? So: out-out = kill but out-in-out = no kill. 2. With a 2-3 LM/LF retrace, if the LM/LF is killed then the point 3 search continues, i.e., the lack of confirmation voids any point 3 that could have been 'seen' in the dead LM/LF. Yea or nay? 3. When 'constructing' a 2-3 LM/LF, if at all possible, the point 2 price bar should be used to set the range of the LM/LF. Yea or nay? TIA lj F/U on my last PA/PkV hypothesis (8-13-08 @ 8:13 PM) = try again. If you're not feeling magnanimous or if the questions are so trivial as to require silence for the response, then as Eric Idle would say, 'say no more, say no more'. As of now = 7:46, I have us in a 2-3 LM with a single close outside the lower boundary formed by the point 2 bar @ 9:50 (= bar 5).
Thanks. Everyone thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Then again, I have yet to encounter anything but a great time when visiting Kelly's Island or Put-n-Bay. I agree the above reprsents one method of killing a Lateral - just not the only way. Correct. The closes must fall sequentially when looking for two closes outside the Lateral Boundaries. The answer here depends on context. A Lateral may end prior to the market completing its 'move' from left to right, or a Lateral may end as the market resumes its move directionally. In addition, the market might 'step down' in pace creating a second lateral after killing off the first. Again, context provides the answer. For 'shorter' duration Laterals, your viewpoint makes sense. However, for 'longer' duration laterals (those which seem to go on for a few hours or so), the market has 'flattened' out its directional slope. Should the market create a high volatility bar during the Lateral creation, the placement of the Point Two position may not 'fit' exactly as anticipated. This should not present a problem as it represents a 'paperwork issue' rather than a market dynamics one. I have the same, but due to the significant 'width' of this morning's forming Traverse, I anticipate the formation of additional Traverses 'within' the current forming one - thus transforming it into a channel. - Spydertrader
Many thanks Spyder. I believe I mentioned earlier in this series of postings, that my comment of mid-February stating that, IMO, the thread had more to do with reiterative as opposed to iterative refinement, was way off the mark and once again I must say that indeed this is iteration at its best. The famous Canadian endocrinologist, Hans Selye, once said there were two types of researchers - problem-finders and problem-solvers. IMO, a good researcher should be both of these and as well appreciate that it is often better to be the latter before attempting to be the former. lj
The AM bumble: Unlike Mr. Black (who must live near Belene and is kept awake by the man-eating mosquitos) and most probably Spyder, I did not begin the AM LM with bar 4 but rather bar 5. Had I selected bar 4 I would have arrived at the same point when the bar 4 LM was put to sleep by bars 8 and 9. This is NOT a rigorously annotated chart and has been trimmed to focus on the LM's and LF's. lj And yes after much weeping and gnashing of teeth, I finally removed my beloved 5, 10, 50 EMA ribbon. It has become nugatory.