Lastly, I have been under bad circumstances for work. Changing of house, internet interruptions, bad vibes.... well, life down here eh ? I hope no one's missing me and my messages, anyway I apologize for my silence. I'm rereading old posts and threads to gather all the information I need to get the PP's among things. As I'm following your advice @Sprout , I try to get my answers directly from the market which leads me, obviously to ask less and work more. Conclusion : more silence. Although as I said before the conditions were lastly non gathered to make me able to work properly, it's more than anything that I'm searching my answers directly from the market. With all that said, I hope all of you guys are experiencing nice iterative refinement and positive orders. When i'm ready to post again, you'll know it. Keep up the great work
Been wondering,...of course your DD is missed. You are SO CLOSE to having all the work that you have done up to this point coming together. You've been building your base of inference in such a thorough way, once you work out some personal blocks, a view of the market will crystalize for you that will make all the hard work worth it. The following post after the one referenced here will repeat how to start from anywhere. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/market-system-of-operation.280654/page-19#post-3920352
Working through OB's As a class OB's represent the most challenging aspect of the 10 cases of price. By definition, they are composed of two moves of price. To further compound the complexity they also can have 1, 2 or more moves of volume. To sort out this complex and confusing problem, it's supportive to break it down into smaller more manageable chunks. What is necessary is having some of the 'priors' on the table. Some priors would include, WCB (What came before) as n-1, WHN as n (What's Happening Now), and WMCN as n+1. Also having the 'pattern' handy with the Dom, non-Dom, Dom moves of price and volume defined. Also helpful is what I would consider PoLR (Path of Least Resistance) and PoGV (Path of Greater Volatility). Jack didn't define these per se and they are observable intrabar before EOB. PoLR is where the 3 legs of a price bar form with <= 2 retraces through the doji and PoGV is where there is >2 retraces through the doji as retraces become frequent reversals intrabar. If we start with the listing of all the OB's there are the ones that are frequent such as PP4 and PP5 and the ones that are less so. If we look at the Modrian table, it points to the ones that are at the transitions of trends as defined by turns. The OB's not mentioned in the Modrian are also present as turns but through the use of negative logic. One can know a thing by knowing what it is not. For example if a BO,T1 is present as the prior C-turn and a PP4a comes up as the next ID'd EE, that puts us in Set A, then it is an A-turn due to the negative logic by which the table is constructed. As the trend progresses, since there is no PP4a listed in Set B, then the next EE will be a B-turn. PP4a is also not listed in the Move Reversal table for either set, so with this particular EE as soon as the PP4a is ID'd then one KNOWS that price will oscillate back into the Dominant direction as defined by the initial BO,T1 C-turn. The exception is if one miss ID's the turn in the prior sequence. It's the magic of the Modrian and Move Reversal table when used in combination! Another distinction to have on the table are when the OB's occur. So now we have OB's at the; 1) beginning of trends, 2) during the progression of trends and 3) at the end of trends. Jack has defined FTT's as the event that is at the end of one trend. He also further defined that it's also the best entry for the beginning of next developing trend. To work through this exercise, it's supportive to keep them distinct and see where there is overlap. As one worked with the SCT material, it takes practice to identify FTT's and stay on one's trading fractal and not jump fractals. This brings us to logging all the sequences that include OB's that are confusing. By working through all the permutations of price cases and context (which as it turns out is finite,) then one can create for themselves a Catalog of Clarity. If we have the market be the teacher and consider each OB formation and sequence (WCB, WHN, WMCN) is perfect, whole and complete then we create a context where clarity is the end result. RDBMS is a descriptive language of what Jack called the Market System of Operation. As one develops facility with this method, one sees all the previous iterations (PVT, SCT) as building a complete system that has no flaws, anomalies nor noise. Since questions guide focus, these are the following questions that will support creating further differentiation in with regard to OB's, it's important to observe the close of the bar in the now. This brings us the WCB the OB. Was the price & volume sequence clean? -When I refer to this what I mean is that was the prior trend/trend segment a complete trend or was it an incomplete trend? Was the prior bar an EE? -This will make a difference as one performs the VTP on the upper level as the OB is logged. Is it an assigned P1 from the prior bar? Is there a difference when this assigned P1 is coincident with a FS or not? Then we can consider WHN Where are we in the OOE of the current trend? -OB's can be sorted into categories depending on which Events composed it. Did price go to the 'with trend' (peak or trough) extreme first? Did price go to the 'countertrend' (peak or trough) extreme first? -With these two having 'the pattern and seeing the Dom, non-Dom, Dom moves will help sort this out. Then as we come to EOB Where is the close compared to the open? Was there an established FS from the prior bar/s? Did price XO the FS? Did price reverse from this excursion? The answers to these questions will determine WMCN. The assigned P1 will either signal change as an imminent reversal of price or it will further progress the trend in the OOE. The close of the bar after the OB as WMCN contains a key of whether the OB was correctly ID'd. Also worthy to note, as a tool, 'squishing' a current bar into it's previous creates clarity. Here are some examples of working through some permutations. There are more sets to work out, but this will give a one a starting point. Cheers! in sheet two 'negates' means that even though the OB signaled a turn as an assigned P1 on next bar. The turn did occur but is was followed by a fast one, a BM,rev. This turn is a return to the Dominant trend prior to the OB.
Have you tried to consider the OB as an "internal"? All cases can be classified as translations, or non-translations.
@Sprout , thank you very very much for your last post. I'll actively read and work on it today. Here follows an attempt to "start from anywhere", which is directly linked to the quotation you put above, I mean, the "2nd message after the one referenced". I apologize for changing the color theme, my eyes after so much years of daily work on a computer, begin to ask me some better treatment. Dark colors temporarily make me feel better. It will not last. I know there are some errors, maybe some obvious sometimes, on my chart. This is what happen when I focus almost only on one thing. Let's ignore for the now those errors. I tried here to combine some infos, gathered. Turns appear again for example, and this exercise is very good for me cause as I'm focused on volume, I begin to perceive things differently as for Volume Vs Price : it's more now Volume + Price, both at the same time. No words for me fit well with what I currently sense, but what I sense with that stuff is unique Cristalization must be the fine word, one more time thank you @Sprout
Unless an OB is the 2nd or third bar of a lateral (and complies as such) it cannot be an internal. It is two translation bars as a single bar. Even in the above case if it activates a FS then it is a PP4. The FS takes precedence always. Many times FS lines do have excursions of price action in the current bar intrabar but if the close does not violate by EOB a FS has not been technically activated. Even if in the VTP, the next OOE is an event beyond P1/T1, a FS triggers an EE and a reset occurs, which also sets the pt1 for the RTL, and a BM is established. Since the bar is also an OB, the VTP is done on the bar with P1 assigned to next. The n+1 bar then creates the pt3 of the container regardless if it a repeat P1 or a T1 since it is advancing the progression of trend if the geometry complies.
In an attempt to gather the result of the prior exercise with the very familiar and foreign concept that I am with : gaussians (volume), here follows a chart where I try to see how it is, not how I believe that it is. So, in a nutshell, trying to combine volume and price most basic annotations....whithout mixing fractals. The underlying information I use here are the screenshots attached (+ all I know for sure). The whitened zone locates where I begin to feel unconfortable with, I'll explain later thoroughly why. SO, the idea here is just an exercise to find absolute simplicity on volume sequences pairing it up with fractal price shape formations.
You brought up the sticking point and crux where I chose a different path. I believe it was in the Spydertrader's TraderLab thread. After what felt like I was going crazy, the concept that all gaussian formations must complete, although stated as true, after doing my own DD, I've determined is not. It was at that moment, realizing I was stuck that I began to read more for comprehension than to 'get through' content. It's also at the same time where in deconstructing the market into it's basic granularity where I started exclusively reading Jack's posts. This was a blessing in disguise for it brought me to the RDBMS which after working through the logic explicitly defines complete and incomplete trends. To resolve the apparent contradiction with my experience of 'all gaussian sequences must complete', my interpretation is to go beyond when viewed on a singular timeframe. It is true if one goes to the faster fractal that is intrabar of the trading fractal else it is false when viewed on a singular timeframe. The OB's and IBGS were clues to lead to this realization. I give credit to Spydertrader in that he made Jack's material accessible to me and without his generous sharing of charts and teaching method I would not be experiencing the success I am today. I speak of what is true for me, and respect that others could have their own interpretations. There are many vistas on the path up the mountain, each with their own view of beauty. The pic 'tryin not to mix fractals 2' being defined as a tape, although could be true if viewing from a slower fractal container, in my DD is not a single tape but 5 separate and distinct tapes - when viewed in the perspective and trading timeframe of the 5m. The logical support for my assertion was looking for three things as worked with different operating points/perspectives: 1) does this support the idea of extracting the full offer of the market via the parallelogram container arising from price cases? More specifically trading the long diagonal. 2) does this support Jack's description of 20-40, avg 30ish trades a day to accomplish such a task? 3) does this support achieving 2x-3x the ATR? If one looks at the entry and exit of those containers there can only be one determination if one is looking from the perspective of high performance trading and utilizing ALL Jack's principals and concepts as pieces that fit inside a puzzle. This is not to say one cannot find success with different perspectives and approaches to Jack's work and indeed many have. Jack understood and attempted to communicate the power of compounding combined with trade frequency by constantly being on the correct side of the market AND not exposing oneself to drawdowns. It's an extremely powerful combination. This and the notion of 'carving turns.' With all that said, take even what I say with a grain of salt and build trust with yourself as you do your own DD and come to your own interpretations, insights, realizations and Aha!'s. There are answers that you yourself must come to find for the specific sequence of questions that the path to high-performance trading stimulates within you. Questions also have an OOE. I'll continue to offer my perspective but as you go down this path of 'gaussian sequences must complete' my comments will most likely cause cognitive dissonance. Simplicity is powerful and for some, doing a handful of trades/trading fractal per day is preferable than attempting to accomplish what Jack proposed as possible trading intraday.
right that's also what's happening to me. It already began some time ago, but the process is currently being reinforced. let's try to integrate and find what you see. what does IGBS stand for ? got it, and gonna try later in the day to amend my charts 1) currently, no. I'm not at this point, which the only one that I have interest for. 2) 20-40 -> talking about won points ? 3) what does ATR mean ? 100% agree I know and agree with that, but as you know I'm only interested by the point where "there is no reason not to be in the market at any instant". So, let's work