Yes, the post you made the other day regarding formations was an important one , I feel. For the most part, I've felt kinda like I shouldn't be paying attention to them cuz I was thinking "the old way". (paradigm?) Now I feel like it's ok to use them during periods when there is confusion regarding continuation/change. I also saw pennant after pennant today. But didn't mark them on a chart so fuggetaboutit.
Sometimes it actually looks like retraces in very steep channels are in the direction of the channel (dominant direction). For example the last 1-2-3 channel of the day. It looks like price just cannot go up on the left to right retrace from 1->2. Funny regards, Ivo
LOL! The right trendline, or distinguishing which was the right or left trendline, was my first big hurdle. Have that down now but still have trouble with left right directions. Port/Starboard works a bit better.
I spoke with Bundlemaker on the phone this afternoon, and I believe he now has a more complete understanding of how flaws and formations work. I also believe he can now see how one can know before the bar closes, what Volume will do with respect to less than or greater than the previous bar. In addition, I believe bundlemaker and I discovered why neither Mak or myself 'see' the phenomenon that bundle described. The phenomenon (according to bundlemaker) takes place predominantly inside a formation. At that time, both Mak and myself have our eyes on Price looking for the breakout of the formation. Hence we could never see the phenomenon bundlemaker described. By time we go look at Volume, the bouncing back and forth has ended. Now that bundlemaker can see how one can know on each bar what Volume has in store, I see no reason to have bundlemaker produce added audio clips in an effort to uncover the context of my previous comments. In an effort to move the thread forward (and since bundlemaker can now 'see' the solutions to his concerns reside within the five posts comprising the current topic of discussion [flaws and formations]), I offered to take full responsibility for the misunderstanding and even offered an apology. I believe bundlemaker now understands that whatever the context of my previous comments were at the time (five, six months ago), now, more current information, applies directly to the situation at hand. As such, I made sure bundlemaker understood he remains welcome to post, not post, rejoin the conversation or not at his choosing. His contributions remain welcome. Should anyone feel they require additional context to the recorded conversation, I am confident all they need to do is request it. As for bundlemaker and myself, I believe this situation has been put to rest. - Spydertrader
I've got a few days of posts to wade through and reply to, so bear with me. I am not caught up to the present moment yet so if I address something someone else already has, feel free to ignore it. The phrase "after the fact" is not black and white. After what fact? How long after that fact? What kind of fact? Etc. If you enter thinking it's an FTT mid bar, but volume stops dead in its tracks and the bar ends with 35% the vol of the previous bar, you now know "after the fact" that this really probably isn't an FTT and it's time to re-evaluate your position. Not to hard to see how we benefited from IDing this flaw "after the fact." You've been here before, BM, battling with the notion of "predicting." You are focusing on what is happening NEXT when you should be focusing on what IS or IS NOT happening RIGHT NOW. I sometimes have trouble with the same thing, I have to admit. There were some days where my end score was a mess-- I was overtrading and predicting, and it wasn't pretty. But when I reviewed the video I noticed something -- that if I had traded only at the moments when I drew in my channels, I would have been very, very in the green. I drew my channels based on what I "knew" was happening NOW based on the gaussians. But my trigger finger was reacting on what I thought would happen next, instead. In no way does this phrase in any way imply any form of prediction. It is merely an acknowledgment of future possibilities. If we have an FTT, what must happen next in order for this to remain an FTT? We must see decreasing red volume back to the RTL. If we see anything other than that, "what must happen next" did not happen next, and therefore our original assertion was invalidated and corrective action must be taken. You are approaching this in a different way. You are using "what must come next" as a vehicle for prediction rather than anticipation. An example of this would be saying, "This is an FTT, so what must happen next is that we have decreasing red volume back to the trendline." This implies that you have predicted that we WILL have decreasing volume back to the trendline, when in reality, we may not.
Spyder.. I was wondering if you cared to comment on how you begin the day (your first entry). I have noticed several days recently that start out like today, price going up/down on decreasing volume. At what point do you decide to enter? Normally I would be thinking retrace, but this was obviously not the case today. I was not able to trade today, but I would have been hesitant to enter long anytime before 9:45, and would have missed out on a good bit of that move. For the record, I would not have had your blue channel drawn in the same way. Hypothetically, if you ended the previous day in an up channel, would you enter long at 9:30 if nothing significant happened overnight? Or do you still recommend waiting for sync to begin the day? This turned into a few more questions that I had anticipated, apologies...