hard · Order Flow Analysis absorption-exhaustion-imbalance

Why is 'absorption,' not 'exhaustion,' the more precise read of this single bar's footprint?

1. Because the sell-dominant delta proves aggressive sellers were still pressing into the low; the held price means a passive bid resting under the offer consumed all that selling, which is absorption — exhaustion would instead show aggressive selling drying up (delta shrinking toward zero) at the low.
2. Because exhaustion only applies to up moves into highs; at a low the correct term is always 'capitulation,' and capitulation by definition involves passive buyers stepping aside rather than absorbing.
3. Because the heaviest volume of the session can only be distribution, so the held low must be a bull trap that the next two bars have not yet invalidated despite the bid-dominant delta.
4. Because a 3:1 bid-to-ask ratio is by convention a stacked-imbalance signal of initiative buying, so the bar is neither absorption nor exhaustion but an initiative-buy thrust mislabeled by its negative delta.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →