fortes fortuna juvat

Sprout · Apr 27, 2017

3. A L test is performed with the close and L; the maths is Close > = H (in the context of latn).
More...

I think this is a Hershey kiss. Reading literally gives an incorrect answer. Unless one has gone through the mind differentiation exercises via drilling and debriefing, the true answer is locked behind a wall of logic and experience. These are moments where prior frustration give way to "knowing that I know".

Applying logic as advocated, the math for the low test of the lateral should be Close >= L

So, as I understand it, to perform a correct test on bar to determine if it's in a lateral is the result of a TRUE condition for the AND

2. An H test is performed with the close and H; the maths is Close < = H (in the context of latn).

AND

3. A L test is performed with the close and L; the maths is Close > = L (in the context of latn).<--amended
More...

svrz · Apr 27, 2017

Thank you for posting the most pertinent snippets from the various threads, Sprout.

If you recall from the 'Price Volume Relationship' over at TL, a lateral movement was defined as minimum of three bars where the high and low of the first bar may not be exceeded in any way by the second and third bars. From bar 4 forward, the lateral will remain intact if the close of any bar does not break out of the boundary. If only the highs or lows of each bar is outside the boundary, the lateral can still continue. The lateral ends only if two consecutive closes are outside the boundary.

It appears that Jack revised the criteria in which any violation of the boundary now ends the lateral.

stepan7 · Apr 27, 2017

Step #1 - Assigning proper Color to the Price Bars and Volume.

Attached Jack's and NT charts from 10-4-2013.

Guys, please do some QA to correct errors.

Whoever wants first cut of indicator to play with, PM me.

Stepan.

fordewind · Apr 27, 2017

Hi Stepan,

if it`s not in dll, i`d look at it.

Thanks.

unitrader1 · Apr 28, 2017

Stepan

may be the first step should be 100% understanding the logic behind so called ‘Jack 2.0’ before coding and bars coloring

what I understand (or imagine that understand) from late Hershey posts:

1. Using 5 min time based bars for displaying of market activity is compromise variant which allow to monitor and catch intraday swings and not to dive into finer analysis (one tick range bar charts for ex). However, Jack told many times, that the ‘time’ is irrelevant to market activity and time is not true market variable, price and volume are.

This is the first issue to me and it looks even like contradiction so I try to solve this by using volume based bars, but it is OT here in this journal…

2. Jack’s ‘end effects’ is the instrument of segmentation of series of 5 min price AND volume bars together. The entire 81 bar series divides into micro cycles. The end effect can be either ‘natural’ or ‘failsafe’. Natural means we can assign the end of micro cycle when price continues to go in the direction of micro cycle OR price movement stalls for some time. The best example is PP1 end effect when we have 3 consecutive rising volume bars with acceleration. For every ‘technical analyst’ (except Wykoff ) it is continuation sign, for Jack it is end of micro cycle and the signal to look for sentiment change. Jack told many times that market is the winning game only for minority and PP1 is the sign that majority arrives and time to escape. Also remember Spyder’s advice to execute the trade when volume is relatively low (=entry with minority).

Failsafe end effects are for capital preservation and give ‘late signals’ so for ex BO T1 is present when price already went against the current micro cycle.

If I understood correctly, Jack presumes ‘end effects’ for analysis only. So, trader should not take any of ‘end effect’ as the sign of trading action.

3. Jack clearly and objectively (so 100% codable) defined 4 types of trends, which are indeed intraday swings on 5 min bars series. Each trend is constraint by 2 end effects and has some price action in the middle. By construction of end effect the price action in the middle usually looks like tape with some internal bars.

4. He defined types of turns which are dominant-to-dominant (require reverse action in trading) or dominant-to-nondominant (requires hold action). He introduced ‘Modrian table’ for pairs of consecutive end effects which objectively defines which type of turn is dom-to-dom and which is not.

BUT!!! Jack never explained the LOGIC behind Modrian table. He never explained how he deducted this table. If he did it and I’m just blind to see and somebody can provide the link to this explanation – I will be extremely grateful!

So, in my opinion, to code and use anything for trading the person should 100% understand the logic behind. It’s hard and I think impossible to trade profitably what is not 100% clear logically even it’s hard coded.

So, the question for seasoned Jack Hershey followers – what is the logic behind Modrian table and how it was deducted.

As usual sorry for my bad English…

unitrader1 · Apr 28, 2017

Lots of work is done here https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/deciphering-jack-analysis-bar-by-bar-ll.281477/

but still no explanation regarding the logic behind Modrian table which is the core of 'Jack 2.0'

btw, Stepan, it's your journal so please let me know whether my comments are welcomed here. I'm far not an expert but student of Jack's methods and do not want to invent into the discussion among pro's with my newbies replies...

Sprout · Apr 28, 2017

Closest I've found:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/rip-jack-hershey-81-died-on-11-3-2014.291087/

Jack Hershey said:

I know I spell Johari wrongly and I also spell Mondrian wrongly; these are just tracking devices.

Mapping the "c" turns onto the Modrian Table was a mathematical deduction exercise.

By just using 8 panels I could state the "differentiating" characteristic of turns where the dominant changed. A turn where there is a dominant change defines the event where extreme amounts of money is made. At maximum shares of stock (100,000 for me) I have done a turn that netted 17 points per share in the 28 dollar per share exit range. (11 dollar inital cost per share range).

The Modrian table has a skeleton or framework. I combined two derived premises to build it.

1. I included each type of trend as Sets A through D.

2. separately, I included routine turns of the system AND the failsafe instrument system for preventing any losses.

Crossing 4 with 2 yields 8 panels. This is an invincable and powerful protective device.

Next I applied the OOE principle to achieve "knowing that I know" in advance as NOW is monitored and analyzed. I believe "anticipation" is the best tool for instilling the replacements for the CW based emotions of fear, anxiety and anger. Here you see the use of n-1 and n columns in each trend type. you also see within the trend type the n-1 and n of the turns in that type of trend.

Because a trend ends with a "c" turn for all types of trends, you deduce the four types of trends:

1. c to c,

2. c to a to c,

3 the normal trend: C to a to b to c, and

4. the drift trend: c to (a to b) to (a to b) to c.

By putting an n-1 column in the map, it is possible to achieve a form of differentiation by having a kind of "context". Lo, Brandt and Aronson ommitted context in their work so the work failed.

In effect, I spread out c turns over the types of trends and I also rigidly set in place a context for differentiating types of c turns.

What is true about End Effects is that any End Effect can play any role, i.e., any turn type.

So I set up the table and then I filled in the table's ingredients.

In trading, it is possible to make each experience purposeful. I did that informally. As a consequence I began to make money in my account from the beginning of setting it up. I ploughed 50% of my income into the account as well. By 40 days into the learning process I had been making money the second half of that time period. Before that I was just learning purposefully. I never had to try to erase anything I learned. I began with channel trading at a time when a person had to pencil his own charts. I had to ink the blank master chart as well. This meant I had to deal with each and every detail. I knew each time when I made a mistake since I did so much work. You never make any mistakes when you pencil your own graphs and annotate the channels. This is a description of working on SEQUENCES.

I got formal feedback. My broker was telling me about his other clients who were coattail trading me. then he told me about other brokers who were coatailing with their clients. So my money making was enhanced by others "pushing " my trades.

My trading breakthrough came,for me, when I got lazy with volume. I stopped drawing bars and just did significant figures in the boxes. As did Darvas, we both discovered an oder of magnitude change in volume caused price to be affected.

So voila, I had it made for the rest of my life. Later I made the work of Dodd and Granville explicit in paradigm theory.

Because of a lot of things, I was recognized globally as a problem solver. This cutting edge work, kept me sharp and on point in many ways. I may have grown what became recognized as a gift.

I also trekked in the wilderness and lived off the land from desert to tundra. I learned to function medically in formal trauma and in very remote areas under very difficult situations in which I found others.

My samples are excessive by statisticians standards. I keep binders in two forms: chronologically and contextually. Every piece of the market's system of operating is named.

In science back checking is done in a deductive process. As science builds its (or a field) field, it begins with the most evidence and takes the evidence apart. Then all the pieces are used to build the whole from a foundation. I ask others to repeat this process.

Usualy a person will not take out a sheet of paper and draw a single piece. Society and culture make this impossible today. Non US traders still have this ability, however.

I have built a heirarchy from the elements of the market. granularity afforded me this opportunity.

10 price pieces exist. 11 volume pieces exist.

I began in 1957 and RDBMS were first created in 1970 0r thereabouts. So I had a good headstart.

Relativity applies to the market system. BUT counterintuitively all trends must be monitored and analyzed independenetly of each other.

The great fork in the road occurred and Bayesian stuff took control and makes markets so simple to BEAT by NOT using any of that stuff. Science has to be used instead.

So I use the Scientific Method.

the market dictates that Boolean algebra be used. Granularity of variables makes all the few pieces easy to differentiate.

Thus, a relative database management system appears.

By finding the smallest parts you begin to differentiate with meaning and you produce definitions.

Price change is how money is made. So the pieces are assembled with one mission: making money systemically.

fortunately data can be used in clusters. The best type is not used presently but it will be in 5 to 10 years.

I group parcels by time period AND by profile. The OTR profile is best for carving extreme profits.

As a compromise, I use 5 minute bars. I operate in the 10 to 100 millisecond range so I have plenty of time compared to the data yield of a 5 minute bar.

My sample in use currently covers 81 bars a day for several years. The data is formalized into the pieces and combinations of the pieces have names.

A spectrum results. All of the pieces and their combinations are found in seven sheets. The Modrian Table shows the reversal turns in an n-1, n context. As expected, it is a simple finite list.

To trade, a person goes from general to specific. this scientific set of shells leads to knowing that you know in a total context all of the time. In the systemic operation of the market there are no flaws, no anomalies and no noise. If an observer is seeing these things, then he is still on a path that has not been completed as yet.

fascinating..

#8 Apr 25, 2015
More...

Would you mind posting any volume bar case descriptions that you know? Your post helped me understand PP1 but I forgot what PP stood for.

Sprout · Apr 28, 2017

svrz said:
Thank you for posting the most pertinent snippets from the various threads, Sprout.

If you recall from the 'Price Volume Relationship' over at TL, a lateral movement was defined as minimum of three bars where the high and low of the first bar may not be exceeded in any way by the second and third bars. From bar 4 forward, the lateral will remain intact if the close of any bar does not break out of the boundary. If only the highs or lows of each bar is outside the boundary, the lateral can still continue. The lateral ends only if two consecutive closes are outside the boundary.

It appears that Jack revised the criteria in which any violation of the boundary now ends the lateral.
More...

Thanks. That is my current working definition of a lateral.

In terms of Jack's revised criteria, that would make sense to me. As He continued to seek the full offer of the market, it would lead him to faster fractals. Given the concept of nested fractals, I see why he no longer showed the channel annotations, since he is now extracting at sub-display fractal segments based on event orientation as per OOE.

I don't know how this relates yet but I came across this in the Exact Science thread post #75

"the Five Stages of Order of Events; end of continue, beginning of change, optimum change,
end of change and beginning of continue."

stepan7 · Apr 28, 2017

Step #1 - Assigning proper Color to the Price Bars and Volume.
Step #2 - Formations.

Attached NT ES charts from 4-27-2017.

Guys, please do some QA to correct errors.

Whoever wants first cut of indicator to play with, PM me.

Stepan.

stepan7 · Apr 28, 2017

Sprout said:
Would you mind posting any volume bar case descriptions that you know? Your post helped me understand PP1 but I forgot what PP stood for.
More...

I am sorry, but to who are you referring this question?