20080716 1st pink short traverse Of course, it is entirely feasible that some of these annotations were done with signals from finer tools such as ym. If so, then perhaps my earlier conclusion was correct in that we must have increasing vol WITHOUT a penn/lat bo in order for an ES traverse to be valid.
In both cases I see the existence of increasing volume that does not come from Lateral (either Movement or Formation) BO / FBO or from a Pennant / Adjacent bar Even Harmonic BO / FBO.
We would annotate it in real time and look for confirmation after. Similar to Spyder's example earlier this week: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...29&highlight=where+is+point+three#post2059029
That's a perfect example. We have a green FTT - signal for change, next two bars decreasing red. As expected after an FTT. Then a Hitch, hidden inside Sym. So we know this thing turned dominant already since we've got the flaw. Pennant BO - increasing volume. do we have our pt3 and traverse yet? If we did the market would not have BO'd the pink line and then formed OB on increased volume - change signal itself, followed by decreasing red - jokari change again. But what signal for change did we have on a bar the BO's the pennant? None.
15:00 on 20080728 is incr red vol bo of an fbp. 12:55 on 20080728 is my mistake. The p3 as not at a pennant.
Brown pt3 down chubby tape. Increasing red from pennant BO. No signal for change. Deceleration and fanned outward orange traverse.
Think about it. If this was pt3 then retrace and trendline BO would have become reversal and pt3 up. We do have retrace and trendline BO, but no reversal and pt3 up. But in our reality pt3 is always completed unlike in icarus618's reality. What is the only possible logical conclusion. It is NOT a pt3!