Great comments guys! Thanks SRS for elaborating on the Rule as well. I pulled the quote from Market Delta, but I would assume Dalton would be the definitive source as per your comments. (Mind over Markets (p279) does not state the half-hour periods must be consecutive <= good to know!!)

Yeah Tiny, the stop would be an issue if you were trying to take this trade. When you noticed the 2nd penetration, you would have to decide whether or not to 'go with' or wait for pull back entry. My thought was simply that when we did get that afternoon pullback, if you had this data in mind, it could influence your decision on whether to be long or short around the 1200 pivot, but you would have to have some confirmation on your bias regardless I suppose. I did not take advantage of this, but it just perked my interest in looking at higher timeframe patterns which is something I am personally working on these days.

Glad to see we got some discussion going here!

As an aside, to your point SRS, I would assume that one simple condition that could affect the outcome would be the range of the initial VA. For example, the day after an NR7, you could have a very narrow initial VA, with a small gap outside of that , then two taps back inside before a trend day emerged...(more of a question than anything as I'm fairly new at this)? Whereas, I would also assume, that a wide initial VA, with a gap, then then has price retrace back into the VA for two period, could have a higher likelihood of crossing the VA range??

Would be interesting to see if Dalton broke down this Rule by looking at the ratio of the gap to the VA range or something like that.

cleon

P.S. I just realized that there was probably a trade around the likelihood of a return to the VAL after the market was not able to trade back below 1193?? There was a mini double bottom on the 5m and a 1600t div at that point (noon'ish). What do you guys think - too much hindsight, or it had potential at the time statistically?