Beta Test of Automated Final Universe as of Friday, August 23, 2008. Symbol, Price Change on Friday, Score, Unusual Volume - sorted by unusual volume - Spydertrader <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2040156>
Thanks! Attached is my 08/19/2008 chart. I added my first attempt at laterals, but stopped annotating FTTs for the time being to focus purely on channels + gaussians.
Thanks, Spydertrader for keeping this thread afloat. To speak honestly, I have a lot of questions referring to the annotations on your chart. They (annotations) are beyond a doubt the correct ones. The sad thing is, I can not retrieve any additional and useful information from them and I'm unable to replicate them real time. After one and a half years of study it can be a really frustrating experience... I wish all of you a lot of success.
Each of the three Traverses annotated above (Two Dominant and One Non-Dominant) have commonality. Find what all Traverses have in common in order to know in real time whether or not you have annotated correctly. You do not need me, my charts or a thread to show you what you need to see. - Spydertrader
Spyder, Thank you for the AM assist. I found the plethora of pennants to be challenging. A couple of questions if you will about the AM so far. The OB would appear to be an effective way, with just 1 bar, to terminate a LF (or LM). However in the pair annotated on your chart this AM, there is a clear difference in what is 'done' with the OB. In the first case, where it closed within the range of both the prior bar and the LM itself, its two poles served to define the limits of what turned out to be another LF. In the second case, its close was outside the range of the LF. It became the first bar of a kill pair and the poles of the second bar then defined the limits of what turned out to be a LM. My question is what is the 'driver' for the decision to use the poles of the OB as the first bar of a possibly forming LF (or LM)? Is it the close inside the LF (or LM) ? If it closes outside the LF (or LM) does that immediately kill the LF (or LM)? WIth the outside close does one then need to wait for the second kill bar before constructing another possible LF (or LM)? A second question is why did you 'start' the second LM with the first kill bar? A final and more general queston is when you (Spyder) are annotating a chart, do you 'construct' your tapes, traverses and channels BEFORE you start addressing the various formations or is context of such consequence that, aside from the tapes, there can be no 'order' to this process? TIA lj
As always, context remains key to determining what actions an Outside Bar signals. A trader could see an Outside Bar on Increasing Volume or Decreasing Volume. In addition (with reference to ending a Lateral) an Outside Bar might form with one or both extremes contained within the lateral or outside the lateral boundaries. Lastly, the same outside bar, in a similar context, might close back inside the lateral boundaries - or remain outside it. As you can see,numerous variations of contexts exist which determine how effecacious one should view the Outside Bar. A trader must learn to differentiate each before passing the monitoring phase of the M-A-D-A process. Logic. When a sequence ends another must begin. However, one cannot 'begin' a new sequence until after a sequence ends. While sounding, at first glace, quite trite in nature, I refer you to Friday's Lateral which began to form before an FTT, but where the trader annotated it on a chart after the signal for change. Today, after the OB kills one Lateral, another begins. Volume tells the trader to expect just such a thing because of the OB accleration of Pace. In other words, under Newtonian Law, we know, "For Every Action, an Equal and Opposite Reaction exists." The job of the trader is not to react to the market's actions and reactions, but instead, to anticipate them and respond accordingly - prior to their arrival. As always, the answers you seek depend on context. One simply needs to determine this specific context, and then, locate other examples of the same context in order to compare and contrast. One does not require my annotations to perform this task. One simply needs to make absolutely sure to compare apples to apples, and not, apples to auto parts. Because the market told me to do so. Two possible outcomes exist which develop after an acceleration of Pace. Volume provides the solution as to which outcome the trader needs to anticipate. However, both outcomes require the trader to take but a single action - hold. The market requires that a trader perform all 'housekeeping' and 'paperwork' functions prior to moving out of 'M' and into the 'A' portion of the M-A-D-A Process. As such, everyone addresses tapes, channels, formations, flaws and all other needed annotations as they unfold, or as the trader gains experience, prior to their arrival onto the chart. Having said that, when an error in annotation leads to innappropriate analysis, which results in invalid conclusions and incorrect action, a trader must then immediately search for the source of the error, and immediately correct that which eluded their grasp in real time. Order exists on each and every bar. Comonality exists in every tape, every traverse and every channel. Every flaw and Every formation alert the trader to know where they sit with respect to the right side of the market - with respect to their individual trading fractal. The sequences from Point One to Point Two to Point Three always complete. Dominant, Non-Dominant, Dominant - wash, rinse, repeat. - Spydertrader
Hey Gucci, I personally feel like throwing a towel once in a while, as well. But after eyeballing close to a hundred charts in the past few weeks I found myself drawing the exact lines Spydertrader did today without seeing his chart. Who would have thought! Who knows may be this stuff 80% subconscious learning - there must be a reason why everybody says "lots of screen time". Keep at it!