Whoa - boy, PointOne ... did that one ever 'hit home' like a freight train !! Awesome insight ! I want a t-shirt w/ the following inscription: "maximum discomfort to the hip-shooters" (considering my roots within that camp) Best regards ...
I had mentioned earlier a couple of Pt. 3 trades which I entered the past couple days. They seem to have some relevance to Ezzy's/bundlemaker's previous discussion, or - at least to me, on a more personal level. Bundlemaker noted several techniques which have helped him make further progress: ... force the gaussians to fit the channel ... I started to trust what the volume was telling me ... Try something different, anything different As Ezzy so aptly stated, for whatever reason, these statements "resonated" with me when considering my actions with the following trades. The first chart snip is from Thurs., May 3, and the second from Fril, May 4. I apologize for having to use two posts w/ attachments to get the pics up. I haven't figured out how to display a chart snip within the text window yet. Both of these setups shared the following similarities; - The FTT's were clearly obvious (with the comfort of hindsight) and they both occurred after price made a higher high, on lower volume (I now view this as a marked divergence) - A R2R formed quite quickly both days, and I must assume I am going down to the tree/limb level when annotating these. (Here is where I, for some reason, actually did something different. Previously, if I was looking for a Pt.3, I would expect a R2R to require four, or five, or perhaps 6 bars to develop. (Damn computer is about locked up again - going to post what I've typed so far, reboot, and then return to edit and complete)
LOL - got timed out in edit mode, so will just continue here. Tack this on to the above post's ... or perhaps 6 bars to develop. Don't ask me why - just one of my probable misinterpretations. But here I inadvertently 'forced the gaussians' to fit the anticipated channels. - Both of these R2R's formed on medium to near extreme volumes. At the time, I remember commenting to myself that I should begin to anticipate a Pt. 2, as it didn't seem to fit within a non-dom traverse scenario. - Both Pt. 2's were uncannily halted by the 20 sma, almost to the tick. Perhaps just coincidence here, but something I have noted nonetheless. - Both 1-2-3 formations required about the same amount of time - 35 to 40 min. Again, maybe just coincidence, but I'll be watching ... I don't know if I have conveyed anything of value here, but I just had a sense that recognition (A = analyze) skills can perhaps be strengthend through observed repetitions. And if I'm way off base here, please don't hesitate to say. Cheers ...
Oh, great ! Another 500+ pg. journal to read, now Seriously, altho I've surely followed links to that journal in the past, for some reason I failed to ever make a good note of it. Thank you, cnms2, for showcasing yet another undoubtedly valuable reference source! It's kinda mind-boggling to stop and think how many times this same material has been presented previously. This leads me to consider how mundane this must all seem to Jack. No wonder his dictions can take off on some metaphorical tangents - he must bore himself silly, otherwise! Best regards ...
IMHO, this is the best of Jack's teachings: He was tough and to the point. Comparatively, you will find Spyder laid back and easy going.
A couple comments on the charts FWIW. The 20sma seemed to work with the "all sessions" on, but if you leave all sessons clicked the carry over channels don't work. The YM starting earlier can give you the heads up on premarket direction. I saw the R2Rs after the point 3s. If you make sure the Gaussian you draw in ends on the highest or lowest bar, (forcing them to match the channel) that slight change may make a difference. In some it only moves it one bar, but it can change your perspective. BTW, the Hershey thread isn't all that bad/long. There is a lot of stuff that can be skipped over. Regards - EZ
This was a big deal for me. Now, if I do as you describe and I don't see something that makes sense either I know I'm not on the right side of the market or I need to walk away from the screens for a bit to recalibrate the old pumpkin. Once you start annotating this way AND mentally drop the flaw bars from the histogram AND split the spike bars on the histogram the whole PV relationship thing becomes as comfortable as breathing.
Exactly. Skipping over the flaw bars was a big deal for me as well. As was matching gaussians to the channel precisely. There are still some rough areas even doing that. Look at Friday from 12:30 on. My gaussians are very different from what I've seen posted. Spyders' long term black gaussian doesn't seem to fit the long term down channel. (sorry Spy ) 14:00 - 14:50 seems to be a lateral. If you look at the volume it drops down a bit there. The laterals are typically harder to read the gaussians. In this case I'd be hard pressed to say there is a dominant. Looks like CCC to me, that ended the Forest downtrend. The YM is usually helpful, but again with the lower volume it gets muddy there too. I think Jack mentioned something about that. I don't want to force gaussians in a low volume lateral. Seems more of a pulse to each side where you get a double gaussian in each cycle. Check the YM to see the pulsing. MephistoII - not to nit pick, but check your volume rays on the ES. Generally the red is 2500, blues 4500 and around 6500, with green for around 10K (or 12K ) and 18K (or 20K). Kinda threw me a bit. -EZ