I am getting my butt handed to me on a daily basis!

the geometry of the dependent variable.

There are several sectors that sum up to the collective whole of PA trading. Naturally, it is possible to approach this from a geometric point of view.

The systemic feedback loop runs this way:

Price to volume to price to profit taking segment.

You have shortened the path to price to price to profit segment.

to keep ignoring the three types of turns is possible. They show on logs and you can omit those columns

In the geomtery of price, the parallelogram says it all.

Since you want to deal with the progression as sensitively as possible, you can use a backup "confirmation" and the BM and RTL and rtl in the price geometry paradigm system you are constructing.

I recommend getting the sensitivity by making a copious list of how the geometry of a cycle unfolds.

By using columns on an Excel speadsheet, you can set the columns up to show relative importance of each event (organized by its column setting) as it propels the cycle forward. what is nifty about Excel is its cut and paste feature. I have had people fill in Excels as drills for building the mind and they promptly defeat themselves by cutting and pasting. fere to your old Excel that explained the geometry on three fractal levels. just add some extra columns for Do and Non Dom and so on.

In your case you want a dependent variable only system for some reason.

do this:

convert the turns to price terminology.

make a turn just be "dom to non dom change"; etc..

Then just segment the Excel list into four parts that sequence by the order in which the types of trends form assuming a market is going all the way to the drift stage. Put a feedback loop in drift.

When you get to the type Set A trend c turn just do the binary alternative decision making between a b turn and a c turn without an intervening (meaning prior) a turn (b turn is false; c turn is true)

When you get to the type Set B trend c turn just do the binary altnative decision making between an a turn and a c turn.
I just posted the details of this type trend (but I didn't know you wre not interested in knowing profit making turns were coming in advance by just looking at a simple look up table.)

When you get to the type Set C trend c turn just do the binary altnative decision making between a b turn and a c turn with one intervening a turn.

When you get to the type Set D trend c turn just do the binary altnative decision making between a b turn and a c turn with more than one intervening a turn.

All the above represents the top of the iceberg part of all PA trading raised to an effectiveness and efficiency of taking the full offer of the market.

By looking at the waterline of an iceberg, it can be seen that there are deeper and deeper levels (try an atmosphere increase level per level.) There are some popular combos of trend types and the OOE's of part of the submerged trend creation. I can look at each PA trader type and do a check off of their set of set ups in terms of the real system of the market's operation.

All you need is what you asked for. you just need to make a Excel sheet that defines the context of the type trend's turn development. Price alone can go no further.

using sets of setups in price action is just the whimsy of "Who I am" combined with the 'tells" of set ups. the phrase "choose to trade according to who you are" comes from the whimsy world.


I'm sorry you did not do the "zoom in" and simplicity of a simpler flow sheet for analysis. I personally like having a narrow and ever changing context that squirts out the significant stuff very boldly.

I am so lucky I got to build my mind to full differentiation by a process of deduction. In my world there was nothing but data and the Scientific Method.

Oh..... granularity on all variables.

OH .... independent variable* ....... STAY AWAY FROM PRICE FOR DECISION MAKING; IT IS LAGGING.

Oh money .... WOW ....... I can have as much as I want and it is available NOW!!!!!!!

ETC ... do the SA and get the problem solved (now called an ATS).



* in fifth grade I did the math for the year in a month and was told I was bad boy. So I found algebra on my own from an older boy scout. He told me that dependent variables were determined by independent variables. X and y stuff.

ET has vendors who are called sponsors. Sponsors want products sold. So ET does not hand out grades to students who do math incorrectly. ET became entertainment instead and has a quick turn over ratio.

There are a lot of lurkers who actually know price is the dependent variable.

Imagine MS's wife telling him the facts. She won't because of her needs. But will she sneak the facts to their baby? Or will MS get there first and make his mind a mess.

 

Why not to reject the approach embodied in the Modrian table too quickly.

this is just a small think piece,

I introduced some new stuff to the trading world in this thread. It jusr seemed like starting the transition for "Occupy" taking over Wall Street should happen about now.

PA trading has arrived in the last few years and it does show how fear, anxiety and anger do limit people and what causes their estrangement from wealth.


price change allows money to be taken from markets by anyone who wants.

The bar to trading is so low it cannot be tripped over. everyone can get over the bar to entry. Some are waking up and stepping over.

Some countries resemble democracies and in those countries advertizing is so stupid almost everyone finds out about everything.

Today cops watching pornography often find child molestors as part of their work ethic.


By intorducing the four trend types, I feel I have nudged even the motleyiest of fools and the dumbest of the stupid.

Cycles in markets are a consequence of opposite trends.

As you see 90% of traders fail, you must consider that they are failing to see something.

You may notice that cycling is a thing that give you pause when .....suddenly your stop is hit.

I show four types of trends and two are incomplete and two are complete.

In your world you see brief trends, trends that fool you and even markets that keep drifting on and on. sometimes you see trends that do what they are supposed to do.

We both are seeing the same thing.

I invented the Modrian Table to give anyone using any method a container in which to put his tools.

A NORMAL TREND cannot be agreed upon but her is what it is. It works for the dumbest and lukiest taders because it is what is "supposed to happen all the time".

the normal trend is what most easily explains how two trends make up a cycle. A cycle is a trend that fails followed by a trend that fails.

most can see a tend as three moves. Two dominant moves separated by a non dominant move. Or it is a beginning move a retrace and that is followed by a last move. Or it is a trending followed by a countertrend followed by a return to the tending.

the third move ends the tend and overlap of trends begins and the new tend breaks out of the right trendline of the old tend and is on its own.

So I built a lookup table to show the last moment of each kind of the four kinds of tends.

I figure that if a person puts the look up table in an ATS, he has a real cash cow. Occupy needs a cash cow to take capital out of Wall Street and hand it out on Main Street.

BUT I need to post the way to use the lookup table. Here it is:

1. determine if the trend has no turns, one turn , two turns, or more turns.

2. if no or one it is incomplete.

3. if two it is normal

4. if more than two it is drift.

So anyone can do this by counting the turns between the price moveements.

I added a top half to the table that deals with two simple geometries in Price.

And the bottom deals with the routine kinds of things that end trends.

for the four types of tends I colored the top and bottom panes different colored using borders in the style of Modrian.

-------------------

Well anyways .... I filled in the Modrian table with data that is a little tricky. I used two colums in the panes. the left column is the turn before the end of the trend and the right column is the turn at the end of the trend.

It is just an example of the fact that knowledge is power.

 

I feel like I’ve I just been scolded for not using volume and for not using your RDBMS system. Although I do not use the methodology you currently advocate, as I’ve written before I do use your methodology as roughly outlined in the first several months of Spyder’s Future’s Journal. The Pattern, Channels and Gaussians, 1-2-3-FTT, YM leads the ES, etc. Of course I use the independent variable. Volume leading price is essential to the methodology.

If I inadvertently lead you to believe I was not interested in using volume in my trading I apologize.

Occasionally when I annotate the price channel (always in conjunction with volume), I have a hard time making the “geometry” work. Annotating the Set A, C, and D trends is rather straight forward. I thought by gaining a more complete, or perhaps, more accurate, understanding of Set B trends, I might solve my occasional problematic “geometry”.

As you said, we’ve already taken a couple of laps around Set B trends. Perhaps I’ve done a poor job of communicating my confusion. I’ll go back again and review the first couple of laps. That review, along with your answers above to my two questions, will hopefully resolve the lingering ambiguity I have concerning Set B trends.

I value your detailed posts from yesterday and today. Thank you.

-river

 

baro-san,

Thank you for the graphic. It looks like you've annotated volume (the bright green line) to show "increasing" over an entire trend, but it's not clear to me what the two corresponding price "legs" for a Set B trend would look like.

Would you consider sketching the price portion along with the volume?

-river

 

I wish Jack would have intervened long time ago when everybody was using the approach you describe.

At one point everybody who tried to understand that approach (trying to fit "The Pattern" to the bars on their screen) automatcally ended at sitations where things didn't seem to fit. WTF!? It is supposed to do this... or that. I have one or more missing leg/segment or a few too much but somehow I need to make this fit (look like) "The Pattern".

While some people were thrown off the track others somehow found ways around those issues. Even though the old approach seems to work for you I think it is also a hinderance for you. You maybe think that you are using a "volume-leading-price-method" but from what I saw in the past is that it is mainly a "put-price-into-channels-and-somehow-draw-some-gaussian-lines-method".

Jack's current method requires you to shift mentally. You have to think like a computer(program). You can not draw anymore gaussian line which are increasing because they have to match the price channel but in fact volume is decreasing or vice versa. No computer would understand why in one situation you intuitively do one thing while next time you do somehing else.

You have a choice. Either you continue the way you know and are used to. In this case try to do what Jack suggested: Try to ID your different price segments into the four trend types. Or put in some more effort, put what you think you know aside. ID and log EVERY price and volume bar. Put volume into categories. Let it be your main focus and truely be your volume-leads-price method. Put groups of volume bars into PP's and bands. Then use the Modrian table to guide you further.

All of this requires much more work than simply putting price into containers. Does it work? Is it worth it? You will know it if one day I start to ask Jack about how to use the other 10 or 12 leading indicators of price in order to carve out a few more points at every turn.

Btw. you explicitly ask for B type trends. This implies that you can easily identify the other three trend types... anyway... to use his Modrian table for trend type identification you need to do things differently.

 

I don't think there's a good answer to your question, as the four types of trends are defined based on volume. Also, they'll look different, in both panes, based on the fractal you're observing. In my view, yesterday, a Set B trend on the first observable fractal ended on bar 78. On a slower fractal you had a Set B ending on bar 56, that didn't correspond to a Set B ending on the first observable fractal.

The green line is not drawn over the entire trend; it goes from T1 to FTT.

 

How could anyone keep their frame of mind if they lost almost 90% of their account?




Two compulsive gamblers I had the unfortunate experience of knowing would say the strangest things. One guy claimed he had developed a system with Black Jack, "I just need more time to sit at the table in Vegas, it's not the money I need, it's the time!" He was serious he needed more time and believed the $1,000,000 he lost at various casinos were holding it for him in their safe and would pay a healthy rate of return when his system kicked in!


I remember his mother asking him, "Time is money, those Casinos don't allow you to sit at their table for free, you need money to allow your system to run it's course?" finally the compulsive gambler said "Yes, I need money but I actually need time to allow my Card playing system to work!" How can you reason with a compulsive gambler like this? He don't need money, he need's time to allow his system to flow, at least that's what he thought after playing those free card games "Yahoo Black Jack".


Two things come to mind when I hear someone has not lost their confidence after losing that percentage of equity. One is they are on some kind of depression drug that has altered their mind into a "Social Blunting mental status", one of my friends graduated from Arizona State got his dissertation in Psychology by studying the affects of greed in Traders and the side effects of anti-depressants with Traders by dulling their senses to a "careless attitude" "The world is crashing down but I am too numb to care! The second is they have lost touch with reality and they are heading for a fall!


I would be scared if I was in this situation now, something is very wrong here!

 

And was about to be a father?

I could only lose that much through broker negligence, theft by wire fraud, and fiduciary irresponsibility.

Wait, this happened to me... and 24,000 other people...

 

You have accurately delineated my two choices. I appreciate the perspective of someone who has apparently traveled a similar path. I hope to soon read your questions to Jack about the other leading indicators.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

-river