Hi Jack, I have attached today's EVERY BAR DEGAPPED chart. are the laterals killed where I show them to end? the lateral that started on my bar 30 did it end on bar 43 or 56? thanks
There is a lot of information in this thread. Creating a glossary makes finding things easier. "...Laterals have BO's. This means the boundary of the lateral (degapped) is penetrated AND the close is OUTSIDE the boundary. If it closes back inside then the lateral continues...."
Yes, exactly! and a lot of various versions of when exactly a lat is killed or not. I'm asking for Jack's
43 Lats require three bars to be defined. Bar 1 has H and L. bars two and three cannot exceed H and L. After bar 3 (bar 4 and onward) the close cannot exceed the H and L. If and when the close exceeds H or L, then a BO has occurred. To fit the lats into the trading approach I have been using a "retro" set of rules. On bar 4 I begin to go back to unnamed bars (in volume) and name them. Every bar is named without exception. this continues going forward until break out of the lateral. If a turn has occurred, practically speaking, I get on the correct side of the market ASAP.
Update. I interviewed the team as we traded on Thursday. A shift in operation begins next week. To that end I am writing up all the details that came up in the interviewing. they will be arranged under two main headings: Annotating and logging AND monitoring and running the trading platform FYI The DOM and T&S is on the trading platform. The shift in operation is because we go to an MAT orientation. We have confirmed the money velocity of accounts. Our starting knowledge and skill level at the knee of the curve is that the pieces that are commonly in use are understood. Some degree of facility does exist. No one is getting the REM sleep to merge all that is learned day to day. So we do keep repeating experienes that instruct about gaining effectiveness and efficiency. For some reason there is always a regard for money and making money during RTH. A whole set of Q's come up. I am using just one answer: "I follow the approach at all times." There is a corrollary, of course: the money takes care of itself. From my view, this ever present element, arises from lack of sustained experience in making money and comparing making money to one's lifestyle. We are very clear on the money velocity of our operation here in the trading room. The daily quota has been earned in as little as 10 minutes or 20 minutes. There is no requirement that in the space we have to be making money all the time. When laterals are underway, the process is carried out without any significant money talk. That is to say, laterals omit the aspect of money; not much, if any, money changes hands in lateral dominanted periods. I never discourage money talk. At this point it is a little repetitive, however. We use the "first down" in football. The direct comparison is the week and the BP shift in a week. A first down is achieved relatively by doubling the BP in three of the five days of the week. This sets the standard for the MADA continuity and E and E. Elsewhere at the beginning of a long thread, OODA was mentioned as the CW alternative to MADA. The contrast is stark.
thanks for your snap shot. Make DOM and T&S same height as DOM. On DOM you are missing "wall" type data so add that for 10 to 20 ticks. Dump th profile on DOM. Put DOM in upper right and T&S below it. Cut width of OTR to 1/2 and Add the STR/SQU to the lower right corner. Add annotation of channels on 30 min and add annotation of P and V to 5 min. On 5 min , at this tme of year switch to 1 point scale on the 5 min. Make sure all volumes scales are uncovered.
Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'. Dylan was right, the times they are a-changin'. Last week you advocated having a "new" time frame displayed, this week you talked about the benefit of adjacent time frames and also suggested changing the point scale which previously was kept static for the purpose of mental calibration of volatility, pace, and money velocity. I guess I didn't get the memo; what else, which at one time seemed important to the methodology, has changed? -river
What escaped you is that I gave you JACK'S version. In this thread I don't care about any other version. I had enough bullshitters warning me not to waste my time wih Jack, that his method doesn't work and that it is gibberish/rubbish. I don't care, I form my own oppinion. As you found one of his posts which you didn't understand I gave you a simpler version which he posted and which you read (hopefully) but didn't rember anymore. But I understand why you need Jack to give you another version of his previous reply(s) (I do the same) and will in the future not post his previous replys(s) when you have another questions.