Yeah, can't say I believe all stops are arbitrary. but will respect your opinion and I'll just wait to see if OP wants to answer my question or not.
You appear to not know "shit from shinola" about trading... and your posts have become tiresome.... not enough for me to put you "on ignore" (yet), but I'm exiting this discussion.
Can I ask you to look at this objectively? Not being rude at all, but I was the one being patient and polite. I asked the OP why HE was concerned about SPY breaking support while ES might not in theory. So, like we discussed this really shouldn't matter as so what if it breaks by 1-2 spy cents. Yes, I agree, but you kept answering the question or informing me about stop losses and etc, when you cannot answer for the OP why he wrote that. Honestly answer me this, how can you answer for the OP when he was the one who wrote that. I wanted his opinion... do you speak on his behalf? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way either, it's a legitimate question, but since you're saying I am becoming tiresome, when I was the one being patient, is slightly annoying.
Accidentally hit energy instead of index. Sorry. I've noticed that sometimes when a trend hits congestion and reverses, snagging the tick that darts right above congestion might be an entry into that reversal. This reversal may not appear in ES, it may simply be trading lingering near the ask.
I'm also making a strong and probably wrong assumption that if there are indeed stops lingering around bends, that single ticks could trigger some movement that is useful for an entry.
Also, this question was mostly a corollary to the main question of relative importance of volume information
Sure, I've seen a variety of price action under different volume conditions. I would like to know the full qualification of your idea though; volume has no meaning? Or volume doesn't have meaning at certain scales? You see no value in constant volume bars? Or any data volume at all? I'm not familiar with standard volume analysis.
Years ago I used a couple of custom volume indicators which correlated with tradable swing points. But at some point, I noticed they no longer correlated. So, I stopped following volume and find no value at all in trying to add that variable to trading decisions. Volume devotees would say that I don't get it, of course. (I say, there's nothing to get.)
Would love to pick your brains about this, then. People generally advocate longer timeframes; is this not because more trades happen over a greater period of time? Isn't high-volume indicative of "consensus" on the "right" price? Shorter timeframes have such small volumes that pricing may be easily swayed by a greater number of players entering the ring, whereas over long timeframes, it is less likely that someone waiting in the wings will rush in and change things, as they've already made their moves, or nonmoves.