OK. Rubber meets the road 101..... Starting with bar 30. We see bar 31 has a lower high and lower low. It is case B of the 10 cases. We connect the high of bar 30 to the high of bar 31. This is our rtl. We clone the rtl so that it touches the low of either bar 30 or bar 31. In this particular case it appears to touch both. Seems OK so far. Bar 32 has a lower high and lower low. It is also case B of the 10 cases. Options: 1. connect the high of bar 31 to the high of bar 32 and clone to the low of 31 (dashed grey) 2. Fan from the high of bar 30 to the high of bar 32, but we are told in the post above that this is incorrect 3. Neither of the above. Reason: price has closed outside the first rtl that we drew from bar 30 to bar 31. We wait until bar 33 forms and then decide how to annotate. Answer....
It looks like you guys are working hard at this. Are you turning any of this into actual trading signals and making money with it? I just don't get it, so I'd be interested in seeing some real proof.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning in details. As one would expect the breaking of RTL phenomena and the volume behavior associated with it has been mentioned before on multiple occasions but somehow it managed to evade my recollection even though I was looking right at the chart where bar 38 IS in fact breaking the RTL. Thank you.
Look comparatively at the situations of #32 and of #39, masking what you see at their right: #32 is and can be an ftt on the first visible fractal. #39 isn't an ftt and can be a pt 2. You don't have the pace lines drawn, but you can see how because of the low pace one finer fractal became visible.
Thank you for trying to help me here but my question related to the different treatment of the stitch formed by bars 32/33 compared to the stitch at bars 40/41. Both stitches follow a translating bar with a LH and LL. On bars 32/33 we don't fan the ff rtl, and on bars 40/41 I am told that we do fan, to the high of bar 41. I still don't see the difference.
The way I see it, the difference appears in real time: - on #32 you see an ftt and start the non-dom FF of that TF (hold short); next, on #33 you find out that you have a stitch - on #39 you have a pt 2 of a dom FF; next on #40 you have a FBP and fan; next on #41 a stitch and fan again still part of the same dom FF In my previous post I sketched the volume gaussians to show that because of the slow pace you can actually see here a finer fractal. I mean that on #33 you see stitch and you can consider fanning the rtl of the first FF, downgrading the #32 ftt to a sub-ftt. The first visible R2R is between #30 and #37. In conclusion, if you trade ftt to ftt you reverse on #32, then again on #33. If you trade FTT to FTT it doesn't matter. You reverse long on #37 and short on #39 anyway.
This is a terrific and well composed viewpoint from you to express where you are and where you are coming from. we have different viewpoints and orientations. My effort is to go to where you are and suggest how to follow a path to where the Science of PEP and its applications get used pragmatically to make money via the market's instructions to us. In your post you propsed an inductive solution to trading markets. We are returning to deductive reasoning once again. What happens when the mind is free to think crtically is that reasoning predominates. It may become clear why the parallelogram was the ONLY geometric shape available to trade usaing market information. As an aside. The moderator asked for proof of trading prowess of practioners. I'm sure if anyone feels like it they will provide him with what he needs. He may wish to review over a year's postings of trades in a prior thread. Occasionally, in addition, on a few occsions there have be a few provacatuers who have prompted responses at that time with regard to the ES. In ET there was a thrid party verification of a 1,700,000 net profit on one day in 310 trades to exit 100,000 shares of on equity on one occasion. The third party was a broker. As a consequnce of his broker to broker FedEx'ed review of the prints, he reduced his commodities fee schedule by 10% for practioners. That is on the record in ET. My thanks to the moderation for keeping this thread clean of detractors and their inuendo.
Hi Jack, quick verification... In this sentence: "...We do NOT connect which ends of EACH pair of bars..." Did you mean to use the word "each" instead of "which"? Thanks
Jack was simply quoting from my post. My request would have read better if the word WHICH had been used twice: "If we had a concise and clear description of when and how to connect WHICH ends of WHICH pair of bars, including when to fan and when to accelerate the rtl, I suspect that we would make significantly faster progress." The original text made it sound as though we connect the ends of every pair of bars, which of course, we do not. We begin with two bars, and then the rtl will often get fanned across 3 or more bars, forming a parallelogram. As I understand it, the smallest parallelogram can be 2 bars. The one pattern that we are looking for is x2x2y2x in the form of b2b2r2b or r2r2b2r. Each of these patterns forms the leg of the next slower fractal e.g. b2b2r2b will form B2B or 2B, r2r2b2r will form R2R or 2R, of the next slower fractal. For example, a B2B2R2B of a TF will be formed by 3 FF patterns b2b2r2b, r2r2b2r, b2b2r2b. The pattern on any fractal can extend e.g. r2r2b2r2b2r2b2r.... etc, providing that price stays inside the parallelogram on the same fractal level.