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

Since the market system of operation is counterintuitive, it is best to not intuit stuff. In econometrics there are four aspects: direct, indirect, inferred and substitution. Please use all of these. Inferrence is closely related to perception the weighted sum of sensing(10%) plus inference(90%). All of learning is dedicated to inference. Inference comes from the mind where it is stored. getting the mind to store inference is called learning. What inference is classified as is called knowledge and skills. Knowledge can be processed any old way. Having skills is what makes the processing work. In trading the skill that is very important is dealing in an orderly manner. It is the use of stepping stones to cross a beautiful body of water. The stones are used in an order. To stay dry, as a kind of concern, you use a positive orientation. "walk carefully across the water on the stepping stones" gives you a picture of perception that is skillfully created. Thinking of "dont fall in the water while using the stepping stones" is the incorrect inference your mind generates for you when other skills are used instead.

Bundling information causes four values to show up. Two mean something (H and L) and two do not mean anything except that C.1 should be made equal to O.0 (for ease of going forwrd the past is adjusted for bundle to bundle maths) Someone asked me about an MA so I answered for EMA and AMA. None of that type of maths deals with assuring C.1 = O.0; answers are not found in the raw data set numeration either.

 

thanks for the backup details on the BO T1.

sorry about that figure 2. It may have been a couple of weeks back when we were dealing with several items that needed documenting in detail.

this weekend one of the team is redoing his journal cheat sheet notes. He would not let me scan the raw notes. When they arrive I will post them as a way to show forwrd learning progress.

 

Quote from Jack (just in case Jack or somebody else has doubts):

"...You may only have a TRUE BO of the rtl if and only if. a T1 is there and a P2 has not appeared before (at a lock in) the BO of the rtl. If you have not annotated the P2 it has not appeared as yet just for the time being..."

Simplified: You either have a BO of a RTL or you have a BO of a RTL WITH(!) a T1.

There are a few more little details in his definition which we can deal with later but with the above in mind please look at bar 7 of his last chart and log.

Do you understand why he assigned a BO,T1? Can you see the T1? Understand why there was a T1?

 

Jack, thank very much for the log, much appreciated.

 

Frenchfry could you please explain why bar 5 is a BOT1 without a previous T1 in place?

Thanks

 

Jack needs to explain this.

When I originally glanced over the chart I saw that bar 4 was a BO of the RTL. However you had to degap that bar and ended with an internal. This meant that you couldn't run the volume test procedure.

Next bar 5 arrives, gives permission to run the volume test procedure. You had a P1 on bar 3. Wait on bar 4 and then on bar 5 you had your T1.

So everything looked logical to me. Now that you ask I see that I need to verify if my understanding is in line with what Jack said in the past.

So my questions would be:

1. In order to log a BO,T1 is it really necessary to have a T1 or do we simply call all BO's as BO,T1?

2. Does it matter if the bar that breaks the RTL is an internal or a translating bar? If it is an internal then further differentiation might be necessary in the case of a lateral (retro) situation.

3. In the bar 4 and 5 situation a new RTL was drawn starting on bar 5 which was the next translating bar. Well... it was a P1. So one could deduce that you always try to attempt to draw a new RTL when you have a translating bar or a P1. But look further in the chart this doesn't seem to be true. The question would be: When do you start to attempt to draw a new RTL? On a new P1? Next translating bar? Doesn't matter?

Thanks xioxxio and smwbbe for posting your specific, detailed questions. They help others to verify what they know or don't and help Jack to see where he needs to provide further explanations.

 

Thanks for the info about BO,T1. I think I have a much clearer picture now and can more consistently identify that EE. I was allowing the identification of P2 to negate that a BO had occurred.

Regarding the chart posted for 10/24/13, I wondered if you would clarify the assignment of the EE, ”Ac”, on bar 21 (1115).

I attached the portion of the 10/24/13 chart in question, a Volume Band document that you'd created previously and the row of the A Band Sheet which provides the criteria for EE Ac.

If I understand the bars in question, the following occurred:
A lateral begins with bar 14 (1040). Bar 15 (1045) is degapped which makes it be completely in the shadow of bar 14. Once the lateral hits 4 bars, every bar goes through the volume test. After the BO,T1 on bar 18 (1100), a P1 is assigned there. Bar 19 is also a P1. An RTL is created based on bars 18 and 19 (two P1s). Bar 20 breaks out (price) and ends the lat. It’s also a P1 and closes inside the RTL. Bar 21 is a FTP and even though it’s a formation, it has higher volume than bar 20 so it’s measured - and is yet another P1. That’s 4 P1s in a row, but no accel so it isn’t a PP1.

Based on my understanding of how the bands form, the A Band forms with the delta between the volume levels of P1 and T1, but it doesn’t exist until both P1 and T1 have occurred.
Per the A Band Sheet, the following criteria must be met:
After “Not PP1” ===> CHECK
Band is P1-T1 ===> T1 had not yet occurred, so NO
Internal is required ===> CHECK (bar 21 is an internal bar)

Bar 21 is the 3rd bar in a row with increased volume, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it a HVBO (based on my understanding). The volume of bar 21 is not greater than the volume of bar 14 and that’s the bar that started the lateral.

Has the EE, Ac, been identified correctly?

 

Thank yourself as well. You are being very helpful. My thanks to you.

In our trading room, we team and do our roles. The BO T1 is always in the space.

In part IV of our orientation, we focus on optimization. The rtl keeps us more relaxed as we accumulate profits BEFORE the crossover. We use a thre tick orientation to optimizing profits. we have an audible from the annotator IF and WhEN the price has moved three ticks adversely from its extreme.

A BO T1, upon lock-in, could be beyond the three tick optimum market order reversal value. This means we break a reversal into two parts: taking a profit segment and getting the best beginning of the new position's hold.

Topic change. It is easy to see that there are two bookmarks involved in adjacent reversals. Their separation is considered.

Since we a fairly well wedded to the interlocking of fractals AND that three moves in price define a "normal trend". It has become very possible to consider passing on two consecutive reversals and just staying on the dominant sentiment of the slower frctal.

This is also evident in the turn designations. Dominant to dominant c turns are vey important. On the other hand when "drift" trending (Set D type trend) is underway, it is more likely that the bookmarks will be close as drift continues.

This means that BO T1 turns can precede BM REVs on the next adjacent bar.

Once you go through gaining knowledge of the pieces (and this looks good to me at tis point), then you have enough time to not still be catching up. When you work in real time comfortably, then you consider gaining facility. Facility leads directly to "anticipation". Anticipation allows one to carve turns.

We are at the point where the rtl bangs into place and on the 9 step of 21 it is adjusted a little if require.

Optimizing under anticipation is a three bar study.

Going through the BO T1 thoroughly is a real boon for prepping to handle threebar study.

I feel all of you are really conscientious. certainly I need to step up my commentary to assure that what I say is polished and has high utility.

Elsewhere there is discussion about pulling profits; the OP mentions 6 digits as a pinnacle. It is best to begin with 1 contract. 20 points of profit allow you to trade with 2 contracts.

If a person works purposefully, he can teat himself with application of more money once in a while. Sitting at 5 then 10 then 20 then 50 then 100 is a good idea. You he to get use to making money at different velocities.

I was very disappointed at the situation and consequences of my posting 100 contract prints for just opening trades over three days. Please review and undrstand when settlement occurs and please understand that commissions are taken immediately at the time of the reversals. also please look at the consequences of doing a given numer of trades a day. also consider what it looks like in a week where there are costs assoiated with doubling capital weekly.

As this thread gets to facilty and optimum trading, there is no steady state condition. The amount of capital is in rapid transition. But part of learning to trade is learning to be immersed in handling money where the accumulation of money is a dynamic process and does require emotional solidarity and improving familiarity.

 

Good Work

Consider the SCT to be cast in stone.

For me to improve it comes under the process advanced in the piece "BF or BS" on the home page of Behavioral Finance.

In a system that is tightly integrated it is a "must" to thoroughly search through all the building blocks that arise from the foundation.

Ac is an EE that has had a lot of introspection. It got to A band the hard way. Originally it was a reject from the PP set. you point out specifically why it is hard to conside it a "regulrar guy" in the A band.

The recent occurances have been significant as qualitifiers for upgrading the Ac definition. I refer to 22Oct13 bar 18 where the bar spike was incredible. Then, later we took snagits of A bander's midday. (22OCT13, bars 36, 41, 45 and 76). Finally, we saw a similar Ac onbar 58 on the 24OCT13.

So a non PP1 followed by another fourth P1 is now an Ac and there is no T1 nor any int.

We went through "broadenng" the definition.

One other facet came up in the conversations. It is a good idea the collect snagits of EE's. My collection, during development, takes up a few binders.

One thing that made it easier was that I was building "out of" another fully refined geometric system that was allied with an fully synchronized indicator system.

 

Considering that you have a team of people working with you and (presumably) you're all discussing the EEs each day, would you point out other EEs where the initial definition has been broadened?

I couldn't agree more.