Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.
FilterTip
-
Content Count
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by FilterTip
-
You're welcome That doesn't seem logical imo. If a one tick difference didn't matter then we'd have no reason to distinguish between formations and/or whether some were dom or non dom. Neither, I would imagine, would Spyder have brought them to our attention (?) !
-
No we don't need the non dom price formation (via the cases listed previously and the explination re: IBGS) to have a set of trend lines (rtl and ltl) wih p1/p2/p3/ftt (OOE's). The non dom is making the BBT Complex so is within the BBT. That non dom would be at a faster level than the BBT it's within so we don;'t need to actually annotate it on price. On vol we can, if we wanted to, assign a 2y to it. Gaussians match our trend lines. Either the x2x2y2x or X2X gaussians are both within BBT 1. A BBT 1 has an x2x2y2x only because it's Complex. A BBT 1 has an X2X only because it's Simple If our BBT 1 gets us to Tape P2 via a faster x2x2y2x, thats only because we've had non dom within the BBT 1 (making it Complex) to which we can annotate the 2y leg of an x2x2y2x. If our BBT 1 is Simple, then that's the same as getting to a Tape P2 via only an X2X. (We have no non dom for a 2y) Either way it doesn't matter because BBT 1 is getting us to Tape P2. All that matters is that we know this. Hope that helps.
-
You're correct in that we can't annotate a non dom trend line to an IBGS that, in an uptrend, has made a HH and HL. To clarify: Complex = a container (BBT) within which we are able to annotate non dominant trend lines as per the 10 x 2 bar cases. Non dom trend lines in an up BBT = FBP, EH, SYM, and also down Stitch and down translating bar and OB. An IBGS in of itself makes a BBT Complex even if we can't annotate non dom trend lines to it. Please see post# 4016 where "bar 3" is referenced and shows that the IBGS (in of itself) made the BBT Complex prior to the EH. An IBGS, and OB as the first and/or last bar of a container, do not make the container Complex. If they occured, they would need to be "within" the container, as in between the first and last bars. So if you wanted to annotate faster gaussians within a BBT, you would have the 2y gaussian to an IBGS in the same way as you would have a 2y leg to the other non dom formations, non dom translating bar and OB listed above. Hope that's clearer and apologies for any confusion.
-
If your skinny black and skinny red lines are of the same fractal, then your p2's need to be outside a previous (same fractal) rtl. "Outside" doesn't need to be a close outside, but at the very least, for example, the high of a bar for an up p2 needs to be outside a down rtl. hth
-
Yes Yes Yes ................................
-
Hello Scooty This is my understanding of how to deal with VE's for both a BBT and a Tape, so hope it helps. (re: steepeing of an rtl; if we steepen (accelerate) an rtl, then we are leaving behind the preivous rtl. It is not in play anymore) VE: We separate VE's into 2 types: 1. "nitz" (not in the zone) Not in the zone = a. a bar that Ve's an ltl and then closes within (not beyond) the ltl that it has ve'd whether on inc and or dec volume. (over the previous bar) b. a bar that Ve's an ltl and then closes beyond the ltl that it has ve'd on dec volume. (over the previous bar) 2. "itz" (in the zone) In The Zone = a. a bar that Ve's an ltl and closes outside (beyond) the ltl it has Ve'd on increasing volume (over the previous bar) Ve means we are given "permission" to accelerate (steepen) our rtl in order to achieve an FTT. VE BBT: ITZ: RTL Permission to accelerate (steepen) BBT rtl, at the close of the Ve bar, to the VE bar. ITZ: LTL a. clone accelerated (steepened) rtl and place at low/high of one bar prior to VE bar if allowed via 10 x 2 bar cases. b. if not a. then place ltl at low/high of a bar prior to ve bar, providing this new p2 (which is where the ltl is being placed) is not prior to p1. p1 being the start of our new steepened rtl. c. if a. or b would ve in of itself then clone accelerated rtl and place at low/high of VE bar. NITZ: RTL Permission to accelerate (steepen) BBT rtl, at the close of the bar after the VE bar, to the 1st available dominant bar. (Sometimes this is to the bar after the ve bar or via some form of non dom movement (x number of bars and or lateral etc). in order to achieve an ftt of our (pushed out as below) BBT ltl. NITZ: LTL Clone existing BBT ltl and push out to low/high of VE bar. If we then VE ITZ the pushed out ltl then treat accordingly, as per a VE ITZ. VE Tape: ITZ: RTL Our Tape will be re- built via 3 (new) BBT's. New Tape P1 at previous Tape P3. (and start of new BBT 1) New Tape P2 at end of (new) BBT 1 Accelerate (steepen) Tape RTL to new P3 (start of new BBT 3). ITZ: LTL a. clone accelerated (steepened) RTL and place at low/high of bar that FTT's BBT 1. (starts new BBT 2) NITZ: RTL Permission to accelerate (steepen) Tape RTL, at the close of the bar after the VE bar, to the 1st available dominant bar. (Sometimes this is to the bar after the ve bar or via some form of non dom movement (x number of bars and or lateral etc). in order to achieve an FTT of our (pushed out as below) Tape LTL. NITZ: LTL Clone existing Tape LTL and push out to low/high of VE bar. If we then VE ITZ the pushed out LTL treat accordingly as per a VE ITZ. hth (and welcome any additions and or corrections if needed)
-
Hello NYCMB Spyder started the Lateral drill at post # 1128 Ptunic gave a definition for Sym Confirmed Laterals in post # 1215 Several members (see your post # 1301) discussed things through to Spyder concluding in post # 1310. If it helps here is me understanding: Laterals: Non-Confirming Sym Lateral (Non-CSL): Laterals starting (first 2 bars ) with FTP and FBP and EH: = we do not annotate through. Meaning we have annotated to the first bar as we do not yet know it is a lateral. By the close of 3nd bar and if a Non-CSL then we stop annotating. We then treat the lateral as a leg of the container we come into the lateral with. In other words we may fan our RTL around the Lateral, unless we have completed something at the first bar of a Non-CSL. Ie: If we have finished a BBT (X2X or x2x2y2x etc..) with a p1/p2p3 and ftt, at the first bar of a Non-CSL then we can view the lateral as a non dom container (BBT) in of itself. Confirming Sym Lateral (CSL): A lateral starting with a sym and when confirmed by a bar that touches the upper and or lower lateral boundary but does not pierce the boundaries prior to this confirming bar, can then be annotated through. Regardless of how many bars it takes for this confirming bar to appear (if it appears). This will imply a hindsight effect as we need the confirming bar to then look back and see if/where to annotate through, if we chose to do so. Hence a CSL might not be fanned around as a seq can or may end within the lateral by virtue of us being able to annotate through it. By "annotating through" is meant that we can draw trend lines to and from the bars within this type of Lateral. in other words we can use the bars within this lateral. In effect it is as if the lateral was not a lateral. However, we maintain that it is in the sense that it needs to be ended. Dominant lateral: = a lateral (of any kind) who's first bar is in the same direction of the dominant cycle. ie: in a B2B2R2B a lateral appearing in any leg would be dominant if the first bar of the lateral was an up bar (up bar is dominant in up (B2B2R2B) cycle). Up bar = close above it's open. We may complete dominance within a dominant lateral. (ie: without the lateral being ended). Non-Dom Lateral: = a lateral (of any kind) who's first bar is in the opposite direction of the dominant cycle. ie: in a B2B2R2B a lateral appearing in any leg would be non- dominant if the first bar of the lateral was a down bar (down bar is non- dominant in up (B2B2R2B) cycle). Down bar = close below it's open. We may not complete dominance within a non-dominant lateral. Both Dominant and Non-Dominant Laterals are in respect to the first bar of the laterals close and not volume. Conditions that End a Lateral: 1. 2 bar closes outside that in of themselves do not create a formation. 2. OB (regardless of the bars close, on increasing volume over the previous bar) that pierces upper and /or lower boundary on increasing volume. 3. Up IBGS on increasing volume (over the previous bar) that pierces the lower boundary. 4. Down IBGs (on increasing volume over the previous bar) that pierces the upper boundary. 5. A close outside the laterel that would be a 3rd close outside but being a bar subsequent to point 1 above. (ie: 2 bar closes outside that do form a formation in of themsleves and hence would not end the lateral but then a subsequent (3rd) close outside, after the formation, would end the lateral). hth (and welcome any additions and or corrections if need be)
-
I'd say that it's not that the troughs don't matter. PA = successive higher troughs and successive higher peaks. Looking at the Oct 2010 Channel Drill: The down BBT from 14.00 to 15.05 (14th Oct) has PA in it's 2r (15.00/15.05) promoting the BBT to a Tape, without the usual requirments for a Tape, but there is only the trough at 14.55 and it's a lower trough. Red dominance went straight to increasing red, however the volume in this 2r was greater than the containers r2r volume, and indeed greater than any individual volume bar in the whole container from 14.00. Looking at the up non dom Traverse from 15.05 (14th Oct) If there was no PA we only have a BBT 1 by 15.40. But being a successive higher peak at 15.40 we might start to consider PA promoting this BBT 1 to a Tape without seeing the usual requirements for a Tape. A higher trough at 15.45 and a successive higher peak at 16.00/05 allows us to view this as further PA which becomes the 2B of a promoted Traverse without seeing (due to PA) the non dom Tape in a way we would other wise expect. So I don't see it as a matter of waiting or having to have more than one trough in the 2X. Not with standing that we had already had an X2X (trough to peak) to which we can relate the PA. If we do get more than one trough to successive peak in 2X, even if the trough is a lower trough, then perhaps at the very least, we would consider the possibility of PA, especially considering other factors such as the rate of PA if on a single or few bars and successive higher peaks throughout the container. Such variables are not hard and fast "rules" perhaps, but rather a sense of logic in terms of what is being built.(?) hth
-
Hello frenchfry. My understanding is that volume promotes a container by virtue of having successively higher peaks within that container. This would need to occur post P3 of the container within which we see PA. ie: we would not view PA until or unless we had already created an X2X because we need an X2X to which we can relate the PA. I'm not looking at this in terms of a set mathematical formula etc. Rather, merely what we have on volume. ie: are there successive higher peaks in 2X than in the X2X of the container. Having promoted up from say a BBT to a Tape and then we get additional higher peak, logically we may look to view this as promotion to the next fractal (tape to traverse). Perhaps PA is the most context sensitive aspect of all. ie: PA in the last BBT of a Tape would be in the context of both the BBT it is within and the Tape within which the BBT (that has the PA) is. Looking at the example posted by Heisenberg. We were able to promote a BBT to a Tape to a Traverse. In this context (of the Oct 2010 Channel Drill) we had built a down Traverse. We were looking to build a non dom Traverse to a Channel P3. Also from the drill, a BBT from 14.00 (14th Oct) started to build a down Tape, and got promoted to a Tape without 3 BBT's of equal weight, due to PA at 15.00. Another example of context: if we've had 2 Tapes and we get PA in the last dominant Tape of a Traverse then it might not be logical promoting Tape 3 (within which we see the PA) to a Traverse, if we already have a Traverse. Context is in terms of where a container is in regards to the slower container it is building. So PA can be relevant to the container it appears within (ie a BBT) and relevant to the slower container its building (ie a Tape). PA is an acceleration of pace. Things are moving to fast for us to perhaps see what we would other wise need to see for our OOE's to complete containers. ie: we may not see rtl's breaks, dominant and non dominant legs, 3 Tapes to build a Traverse, Laterals would not be treated in the same way etc.. PA is defined. (merely as a visual of succesive higher peaks) What container PA promotes is by individual case. The affect of PA (whether to use it or not) is context based. There are many variables involved, including trying to stay practical and logical. hth
-
..................................... hth
-
As the question is out there for anyone I guess. Then hope you don't mind me having a try at replying. I would agree with you that a Tape gets promoted to a Traverse. On the basis of everything starting with a BBT to build our Tape, our first promotion would be a BBT to a Tape. Or rather 3 non equal weight BBT's promoted to a Tape. There after we would promote up one level for each succesive peak. providing that we do not end with a decreasing peak, which, I think would mean that we had PA but now we don't. I think, also we need to be mindful that we first have an X2X. ie: a higher peak cannot be PA if , in of itself, it is creating our first X2X. In other words we have to have an X2X to which we can have PA. From my understanding, PA in effect means we don't always see what we would otherwise need to see for any particular container to be built. ie: PA would mean we would not see some or our OOE's and or equal weight BBT's. Which is ok I guess, providing we know why.
-
Perhaps think of it in this way; We can't have a Tape unless we have 3 BBT's (minimum) of equal weight. (as per the combinations of BBT 1 being Simple or Complex in a previous post) We can't have a Traverse unless we have 3 Tapes (minimum). We could only have had 3 Tapes (minimum) if each Tape (in of itself) had 3 BBT's (minimum) of equal weight, to build each Tape. Other wise we wouldn't have 3 Tapes (minimum) to have a Traverse. And in respect of how I understood Stevecs question: each Tape of a Traverse does not need to be of equal weight to each Tape that builds a Traverse. And each Traverse of a Channel does not need to be of equal weight to each Traverse that builds a Channel. (Reference to equal weight would only be different in respect of how PA promotes a container.) hth
-
My understanding of your question suggests to me that Tape 1 would have to have ended on the first bar of a lateral in order for all of Tape 2's BBT's to be within a Lateral. (?) We can end dominance within a dominant lateral. We cannot end anything within a non dominant lateral. There are definitions for Laterals. Dominant Laterals and Non- dominant Laterals. Laterals we are permitted to annotate through and those we are not permitted to annotate through. If we know these definitions then it would merely be a case of applying their logic to any given situation to determine how to annotate and/or determine what we have and/or are building. hth
-
It seems logical: But it is not my understanding that Tapes need to be of equal weight to build a Traverse and that Traverses need to be of equal weight to build a Channel. ie: we may have one Tape made of 3 BBT's and another Tape made of say 5 BBT's. Also we might have one Traverse made of 3 Tapes and another Traverse made of 5 Tapes. Rather: Treat each Tape independently of each Tape in this respect. Treat each Traverse independently of each Traverse in this respect. Treat each Channel independently of each Channel in this respect. Equal weight containers apply only in building a Tape. How fractals build or get re labelled has to do with whether or not seq are complete. Unless the seq within BBT 3 (minimum) completes then we haven't completed a Tape seq. The logic is that not until that is done can anything else be built. ie: if the volume sequence for a Tape has not completed (which gets done in BBT 3 (minimum) by the time price breaks out of BBT 3's rtl then we are still building BBT 3. If the volume seq for a Tape has not completed (which gets done in BBT 3 (minimum) by the time price breaks out of the Tapes RTL, then what we had up to then (BBT 1 and BBT 2 and the current BBT 3) are not a Tape. They are all just BBT 1. In other words: All seq have to complete to have a Tape. If they don't, then we don't have a Tape. If we don't have a Tape what we had can only be a BBT (1) building a Tape. hth
-
Hello Scooty. I don't really recall what a "Faster Fractal Traverse" refered to in the IR thread. From this thread there is a simplification to look at containers on three levels: Tape/Traverse/Channel. A BBT is just a name, a label, for the container that gets us from: Tape P1 to Tape P2, Tape P2 to Tape P3, and Tape P3 to Tape FTT. It's the "Blocks", combination of 10 x 2 bar cases listed at the start of this thread that "Build" our "Tape". Nothing more complicated than that I think. A BBT needs to complete it's OOE's. p1/p2/p3 and an ftt. Only at an ftt of BBT 1 can we, at best, think we are at Tape P2. This is an "at best" situation. We don't actually know if we are at Tape P2 yet. How can we (?) We can only expect WMCN via a non dominant BBT 2 to Tape P3. However, BBT 2 may not be of equal weight to BBT 1 (ie: if BBT 1 is Complex and BBT 2 is Simple) and if not, if we didn't get WMNC, then it is not BBT 2, so we fan BBT 1's rtl. Such that we weren't at Tape P2 as previously thought, but are instead still building BBT 1, so have yet to arrive at Tape P2. If we stick to (3 x minimum) BBT's build a Tape and (3 x minimum) Tapes build a Traverse, then we can seek to avoid getting too lost in anything below a BBT. In other words, in the construction of BBT 1 (and BBT 2 and 3 from there on) any price action within BBT 1 would be on a faster level (fractal) so we don't really need to concern ourselves with or indeed annotate on price or on volume anything within our BBT's. Price action within our BBT will do what ever it will do. ie: BBT 1 may get us to tape P2 via just an X2X, or it may have x2x2y2x..2y2x..etc but so long as we can correctly see that our BBT has met it's OOE's (a p1/p2/p3 and an ftt) then all we have is a BBT. All we need is a BBT. To get us to Tape P2. And in the case of BBT 1, all we need do is sit and wait for it to complete, by arriving at it's ftt, then wait for an equal weight BBT 2 to form, at which point we can start BBT 3 and hence know we have a Tape. Always, such as in the case of when BBT 2 is not of equal weight to BBT 1, it changes BBT 1 into a wider container that is now all BBT1, what we have built, in real time, may change. This is difficult to grasp at first. It goes against the mind set that we know what will happen next and that what we have always remains so. WMCN is not "Must" in the sense that it's going to, but rather what is "required" to come next in order to validate what we so far have. If it doesn't then what we so far have may need to be re- "labelled". The only absolute is that our volume sequence of X2X2Y2X (as a minimum) must complete before we can start a new sequence. How that happens is down to the relationship price has with volume and just like any relationship, it's not always immediatly apparant and may seem to change from what we thought it was but so long as both parties are "completed" (where's Mr Maguire when you need him lol) then they can keep on building, what they set out to build, together. hth
-
The attached chart is of May 21st 2010. See Spyders post # 1835. I've added some notes. It might hopefully help to explain, in this example, how volume relates to price for BBT 2 in so far as BBT 1 being Complex. And so help with knowing when and if we have a Tape rather than a Traverse etc.. hth
-
Price and volume go together. There's no relationship without both. Lets think OOE's. P1, P2, P3 and FTT. We need dec to inc volume to get to Tape P2. We need inc volume to confirm P3. So yes volume needs to fit in regards to our OOE's. For example a Complex BBT has non dom trend lines within it (as per our 10 x 2 bar cases). The non dominance is not only via price but signifies non dominance on volume. Let us also consider, in as simplistic terms as possible, that a container requires a volume sequence within its trend lines. For example a Tape would have say a skinny X2X2Y2X within the trend lines of our Tape. For say BBT 1, (Tape P1 to Tape P2) we only require a minimum of X2X. Lets say we get more..ie x2x2y2x prior to breaking out of this containers (BBT) trend lines. This makes it Complex, but it's still only getting us to Tape P2. Now BBT 2 (Tape P2 to Tape P3) needs to be Complex, meaning it will require a volume sequence of at least x2x2y2x within one set of trend lines. Lets suppose we get x2x only in BBT 2. It's there for not Complex, but Simple. Hence any break out of the x2x trend lines is going to be still building BBT 2. In effect this BO is going to BBT 2s p3.(absent PA after the BO) However: What if we have x2x and then 2y, still within our trend lines (no BO), hence we are able to annotate non dom via say a SYM. This is our 2y. However, for our final 2x ,p3 into the trend of this container (BBT2) we require increasing volume. We need to be mindful here and recall volume out of a formation to validate increasing volume. If we don't get increasing volume on the first bar out of a formation (inc over the first bar of the formation) then we don't (yet) have p3 volume. We don't yet have our OOE's both on price and on volume. (if we get subsequent inc vol after the first bar out of a formation, then we do have p3 vol) Further more. In respect to BBT 3, we can look to BBT1 and the volume sequences that constructed it (if anything more than just X2X) to help determine the construction of BBT 3 (as a minimum) hth
-
further to my last post: There is only one thing that negates requiring 3 BBT's (minimum) of equal weight to know that we have a Tape. That being Pace Accelleration. ie: assume we have a Complex BBT 1 (made up of any maner of x2x2y2x...2y2x..2y2x etc...) and hence BBT 2 is required to be Complex in order to know these 2 BBT's are of equal weight and hence we know we are building a Tape. Let us further assume BBT 2 has only 2 bars (translating) and is there for Simple. If price then brakes out of BBT 2 (which is not really a BBT because not of equal weight to BBT 1) and we have PA within the next container (BBT 3), then this promotes BBT 1 (Complex) and BBT 2 (Simple) and the BBT (3) within which we have PA, all to a Tape. PA is defined as: successively higher troughs and peaks within a conatiner (in this case BBT 3), without there being decreasing peaks (decelleration) by the time the container (BBT 3 in this case) has finished. HTH.
-
I'm no authority on this. But as I'm not getting any younger and as much pain, anguish and cost as I've been through with trying to understand this methodology to a level that is consistantly usable, the following is in an effort to help all and anyone that has either been through the same and or, to help avoid or limit the confussion going forward: There is only one life (that we so far know of), so it's better to live it, share it and enjoy, whilst we are still here.... It would seem that it's not a matter of what we call something, be it a BBT, a Tape a Goat etc..but rather, that we know what something is. What does this mean ? Lets use terms (labels) we can all refer to: A BBT gets us from Tape P1 to Tape P2, X2X. This is a known fact of this methodology. What is also a fact, but little known, is that HOW BBT (1) is constructed, determines how BBT (2) and BBT (3) also need to be constructed in order for us to know what we have is a Tape. This is what is referred to as containers of "equal weight". Only if, or not until we have BBT's of equal weight, can we have a Tape. What does this mean ? BBT's are either "Simple" or "Complex" Simple = a container (BBT) within which we are not able to annotate any non dom trend lines as per the 10 x 2 bar cases. Complex = a container (BBT) within which we are able to annotate non dominant trend lines as per the 10 x 2 bar cases. Non dom trend lines in an up BBT = FBP, EH, SYM, and also IBGS and OB. Non dom trend lines in a down BBT = FTP, EH, SYM and also IBGS and OB. ie: in an up container (BBT), a FTP would not make the container Complex, because we cannot annotate non dom (down) trend lines to a FTP. Hence this would be Simple, for as long or unless we are not able to annotate any non dom trend lines. So: BBT (1) determines what is required of BBT (2) (to know we are at Tape P3) and what is required of BBT (3) to know we have a valid Tape. In other words; If BBT (1) = Simple, then BBT (2) and BBT (3) need only be Simple, but can be Complex, in order to know we have a Tape. If BBT (1) is Complex then only if (or until) BBT (2) is also Complex can we be at Tape P3. BBT(1) is the road map for how our Tape needs to be constructed (in order to know it is a Tape) ie: If BBT (1) X2X is Complex (which gets us to Tape P2) and BBT (2) 2Y is Simple, then BBT (2) is not of equal weight to BBT 1. (BBT (2) is not realy a BBT) So we cannot yet have a valid Tape P3. What we do here is fan our BBT (1) rtl to encase BBT (2) (which is not really a BBT). Hence we are still only building BBT (1) In other words we are not yet at Tape P2. The above assumes a minimum of 3 x BBT's to build a Tape. The above also assumes that the OOE, (p1,p2,p3 and ftt) have all been satisfied for each BBT. HTH.
-
The attached chart has several gaussian possibilities. My question, if anyone can help, is as noted on the chart: "Where is the blue thicker line (fractal) FTT ? Wouldn't we need one in order to start the red thicker line (fractal) ?" There is always the possibility !, that my trend lines are wrong. But regardless of thickness I think I am correct to say: that we need an FTT to start a new leg on the same fractal ? If so any feedback is most welcome. thx
-
patrader. How odd..thankyou for noticing. so far, having refreshed data etc..it's still staying the same.. At the time I was confused by the 10.55 to 11.40 period on volume..but didn't notice the time....so this may explain it.. but as I say I'm so far unable to get the missing data.. thx again btw..anyones charts and annotations to compare with would be appreciated. PS: Ok got the missing data ...what to do with the area in the black square ? Help ?
-
This is what I have for 8th_9th and 10th Jan 2013. Done in real time. If anyone can care to comment on if I am wrong (and if so where and why ?) or correct, I'd be grateful. Thx PS 2nd chart is a better view of today 10th.
-
My point for recent posts is not to say cnms2 is wrong or right. Please, it's a joy to have anyone who knows more than me contribute to help us. Rather, that how we would annotate the snippet in question would, I think, depend on what we thought the "thing" was ? This is to say that if we thought it was a Traverse we would be lookng at how to annotate it, some what differently then if it was a Tape. Whilst I'm more clear as to what componants are required to build a Tape I for one am still more than unclear as to how to know those components have been met. Which might seem a contradiction. For that reason I posted (and presume cnms2 did too), and with all the hope in the world, hope that those that do know will continue to post and help, as they have been. Kind regards to all.
-
It would seem the "thing" started on the 13.05 bar. romanus thought it was a down Traverse. ljyoung agreed however Spyder seems to say otherwise. (those are Spyders bold text) What transpired the following day led those at the time to conclude the snippet must have been a Tape. At least that's my understanding of it all (and I stand corrected). hth
-
Reading through the posts for that discussion: ehorn thought it was a down Tape: romanus thought it was a down Traverse: cnms2 thought it was a down Channel: Spyder infers (only by referring to what came before the posted chart) that it was a down Tape. to the 15.35 bar, from which we get the last 2B up Tape to complete an up Traverse. I stand corrected if I've mis-understood those series of past posts. Thx PS: logic would suggest that one would need to have known how to correctly annotate the "thing" prior to the chart in question in order to have correctly annotated the chart in question etc..etc.. !