Please dont assume them to be accurate. They are my attempt at explaining why the market chose to 'go around' again rather than begin a non dominant traverse. Hopefully someone with the appropriate knowledge will verify or denounce them I am wondering this as well. The reason I did not note the 1540 [eventhough it did appear to jump a pace level] area as PA is due to the fact that price never made it close to the LTL. In the other instances, price either touched the LTL or VE. I stake no claim to valid reasoning here, just explaining how I viewed it. I discovered that the trending days gave me way more problems than typical 'leg' days. I ended up anticipating change on about 30% of the bars all the way up/down the trend. Noting PA on the chart, rightly or wrongly , helps one stay in the trending moves and not be looking for an ftt all the time.
I refer you to: (a) over 60 charts posted by Spydertrader since 6/18 which contain tape annotations, (b) Jack's Seven Cases, (c) a few additional cases, Spydertrader posted outside of this thread.
All great questions leading down the path of differentiation - a path everyone must travel. Before one can understand what they do not know, one must understand first that which they do know. Everyone (who monitors and / or trades the ES 5 minute Traverse Level) should know, beyond any doubt, that in no way possible could the market have provided permission to seek a change (short) between the times of 10:45 to 14:50. Anyone who does not believe, think, 'see' and know this to be the case - again, beyond any and all doubt has either ... 1. Chosen not to monitor / trade on the ES 5 minute Traverse Level. 2. Failed to create a thoroughly and correctly annotated chart. 3. Missed a critical component of the Monitoring phase of the M-A-D-A Process. So where does that leave you (everyone)? Did you know this? More importantly, now that you do know, can you describe why it must be so? As always, everyone should feel free to respond. - Spydertrader
An acontextual set of volume bars provides an opportunity to provide an interpretation of what the market did, pricewise, when one is given just the relative V portion of the PV data set. Are you saying that the price profile generated by the market on the date and at the time you mentioned is uniquely determined by this volume bar set? My point and others said the same thing is that there is more than one solution to the riddle BUT when all is said and done, a trader could have reversed at the end of the black pair and been short at the end of the last red bar. So what was 'wrong' with nkhoi's rendering aside from the fact that it didn't agree with what you perceived to be a unique solution to the riddle you presented? I would submit that there was nothing 'wrong' with his interpretation and furher that your interpretation has been colored by the fact that you had context. lj It's that synchronicity thingy again Spyder. Jung is still a crackpot though.
12:15 to 12:35 no permission to seek change because the sequence for an accelerated traverse is not completed. 13:20 to 13:40 no permission to seek change because the sequence for a channel is not completed. 13:55 to 14:10 no permission to seek change because the sequence for a channel is not completed. (Point 2 of the 2nd dom traverse)
Many ways exist in which a trader can choose to see, view, interpret or think about the market (or a portion there of). However, only one way represents the trader correctly receiving the signals provided by the market. In other words, only one correct solution ever exists. - Spydertrader
Incorrect. My response does not involve any opinions with respect to the accuracy of your three statements whatsoever. In other words, your 'three reasons' may (or may not) represent accurate (or inaccurate) information. Your post simply failed to correctly respond to my query. - Spydertrader
Agreed. Acontextual volume bars do not represent all of the signals provided by the market to generate the one correct solution. lj
Your assertion represents flawed logic. The drill does not represent a lack of context. Quite the contrary. The drill, as designed, eliminates numerous contexts. What is more, the environment in which the drill developed (one which currently focuses only on the ES five minute Traverse Level trading) eliminates numerous other contexts as well. In addition, the drill provides vital information indicating nkhoi's rendering cannot represent a correct view of the market. As ehorn so eloquently pointed out, whether or not people like it, the market, did not. As the final arbiter of all things trading related, when the market speaks, it pays to listen. The market is screaming loud and clear within the confines of ehorn's drill. For those currently unable to hear, the market has kindly provided an opportunity for you to locate the direction of your 'next step' in the learning process. - Spydertrader
I have to answer no - I can't see what you are describing. Not even now, after your post, when I know it to be so, can I describe why it must be so. To me, what you are describing sounds like the end goal - SCT. If I could see what you describe - in real time - I would always be in, long or short. One question that comes to mind is, do I need to reach that level of understanding to profit from the method? I now have a lot of screentime. I'm aware of several subtle market mechanisms that I was ignorant of before. Apart from that, I'm probably doing something wrong. No 'aha' moment like the one I remember Avi 8 described when he all of a sudden could 'see' the market (and that was not too far into the first journal). We are all different and learn in different ways, and perhaps a minimum amount of 'pattern recognition talent' must be present to have a chance to ever learn this method (within reasonable time). As always, thanks for your work in this journal.