Jack, does the universal pattern b2b2r2b or vice versa have to play out even in a failed pattern? I assume it does and annotated as such for today. I was just asking for confirmation. Thanks 5 minute and daily shifted. Traverse,Tape and BBT level gaussians. pfc - tape level sequence completion on bar 75 and overlap complete. Start new short tape 1
2 years ago ,things were different, times change ,rules become fuzzy, parameters need to expand for slop (lies ) increase
your lines as drawn may not be respected as the 9 or 10 houses who used to control the market, are now 4 or 5 and can work in unison against our trusted trendlines(manipulaion).Before the sharks had adversaries ,now its a few sharks and a million guppies...understanding the markets is a whole lot of beleif based on the underlying beleifs which they provided,trendlines in this case, they provided a beleif system , which if maintained would keep a lot of people comimg back(the casinos provide a 95% payout on slots)...there is no law saying they can't change the payout...the trendlines are just a guise to keep us guppies alive to feed on... fundamentals seem to have gone out the window with lehman,merrill, bear stearns, fannie ,freddie,aig, and the tarp
Your not understanding what this method is about. Trend line breaks equal opportunity. When one trend ends, another one begins. Fuck what the "houses" are doing or what cnbc is reporting, or what the fundamentals are, this method at its core is understanding order flow on whatever fractal you trade imo. Don't set limits on your understanding.
just allow the possibility that the houses respect the trendlines in order to keep us in the game, much like vegas and the slots,and are happy with they're returns in a normal business cycle, (monthly,quarterly,biannually),now take out the 3 or 4 sharks who used to battle with them and keep each other honest or afraid and see if the game doesn't change..the trendlines u use are only respected because it's profitable for someone,u being the few,who understand them,....don't believe that that scenario wont be taken advantage of if the profits become thin
The patterns are very important. It is just like in the MADA routine. You do all parts to get closure to begin again. Lets take a look at what can come into the picture, rationally and deductively. A pattern is three price moves and they have four associated volume aspects. Think of this as like an atom. Something that is complete and freestanding in a balance of all constituents. We see that three other considerations come into the picture: fanning, VE's and internals. Fanning slow the money velocity, VE increases it. We would expect these accutriments in any atom as a function of its environment. As traders we think critically to know that we know. By having a deductive model that became a paradigm, we got to a place where we can build the entire structure, process and output of a system. So we use science and SA to do this. The internals are where you go to determine how the interlocking nature of the nested fractals perform. One needs to eliminate any aspects of a system that are left hanging in terms of completeness and comprehensiveness. That happened. as a consequence it is possible to have a fully differentiated mind with respect to trading the markets on any fractal and in any market as l;ong as there is liquidity. Currently that does not exest for some securutization in the financial industry and there is also an integrity issue. We have immunity to these things above because we have a complete and comprehensive system for application by choice. Lets look at how the order of events on all fractals can be disturbed in what I call looping or cancellation. you comment "nice" was in response to the "looping test". Very fast fractals on the OTR usually do not have this test popping into the picture. If you are in an observable trading fractal you can annotate the volume and price. You also can go to a faster tractal and annotate it as well. As any pattern begins it has a set of regions inwhich its points can occur. this is deduced and presented on clean page 4 called CP4, traditionally. what I pointed out there was that on a fractal (and not on any faster fractal), that it was possible that p[oint 2 and point 3 could not be put in place as time passed if the past pattern were not taken into consideration properly. In sophisticated maths, this is dealing with the monstationarity issues of systems. Quants miss all of this and use inadmissable data alot of the time, for example. Too bad for them. Maestro misses this concept for example. We do not miss it, however. Giving programmers instructioin on non stationarity is difficult since they operate in terms of coding instead of logic, primarily. To differentiate the mind we simply use geometry and how derivatives are expressed in geometry. I use green color as well to make it a snap. All limits on non stationarity are determined bt moving the left side of the window in time by bumping it with lookbacks that serve to extinguish the past, permanently. Obviously, so far in ET this topic never came to the consciousness of anyone up to this point publically. In information theory we are in the non probabilitic realm. Probability aspects do not work nor does the testing of the function, like BS was supposed to do testing. as you operate (trade), you have to keep nonstationarity in mind. On my nightly notes I e mail there is a lower right box for ALL of the values that are "green" pattern limits on the range of fractals where they are "in force". I maintain it on an Excel sheet. Today started with a "tell" that the new long channel would be destroyed right off. This is a comment that the new long channel limits were still in the nonstationary window and they could be screwed up. What is at hand is this Principle: Adjacency applies to nonstationarity. As any faster fractal that was completed, is only immune to being affected by nonstationarity, if the next pattern on that fractal has been completed. So nonstationarity is a jagged line in fractal time. It is counterintuitive to most critical thinkers. Our paradigm is deductive and NOT inductive. Probabilistic information theory is inductive and not deductive. the collapse of the long channel today was not the key thing that happened. the long travrse also collapsed as did the long tape forming the traverse. The BBT long of the tape also collapsed. What Wasn't That (WWT) is an expression I used to use. It is a null hypothesis reference in critical thinking. There is lots of humor in getting a person's mind differentiated. It is also a pain in the head for people who get suspicious they have really screwed themselves mentally and permanently. In trading, a person works up to greater and greater trading frequency after he has gotten past the entry/exit level of trading. At some point a person recognizes the identity nature of exits and entries in the opposite direction. about this time a person also recognizes when he has put to bed the complete patterns of fast fractals and that only slower fractals can be collapsed in the future. you are there and you asked the kjey information management question. Risk is not done by capital and money mangement; it is really done by information management. Thus all stuff is done in qual rather than in quant. To trade and never get upside down and to have an antiwhipsaw built in, a person has to keep track of the green horizontal limits still in play informationally speaking. This assures that the dominant and nondominant are always properly considered. In sentiment the first derivative of price over time is the determinant. the critical point is the sign change of the first derivative. we track the sentiment of the pattern. One pattern and it can have either of two sentiments. This means you keep horizontal lines streaming from all FTT's slower that the completing FTT's. For specificity, the horizontal line may keep a pattern going as a lateral (hence the Lateral pattern automation on all of my charts. to keep track of the unobservable faster fractals). I log them as LAT - #of bars in length and I determinate them with BO lat and then the translation direction (sentiment)). Once a horizontal line is broken, then the collapse into the past pat of the non stationarity is accomplished. This means the prior pattern is still going forth after the point 3 failed to occur. This recitation is the whole story. Once collapse occurs the pattern that was underway is gone as a building pattern and a former pattern already completed is added to in its dominant direction. What has happened, deductively is that sentiment changed dominance in a forming pattern. This is a return to the original hypothesis set of the paradigm and using an alternative test to perceive, deductively that the second hypothesis is in effect and the measurement is sentiment shift in dominance. For people who deal in black swans and fat tails, they are fucked. Probabilistic thinking is limited. Elsewhere, I spoke of VE's and the zone related to move 1 and move 2. This fragment and that fragment are all of the same cloth as is the fanning. Internals are just pauses in moving forward, or to put it windowwize, they are accordians of patterns that make nonstationarity wider but not sentimentally affected. Most trade "inside" this "test" and are on the right side of the market by the fact that they trade ahead of the herd sentiment. If a person only trades FTT to FTT on the observable pattern this moment is called a "wash" trade. Most people do get wash trading as an early concept, but it is always wise to know why wash trading works and how the antiwhipsaw works as well. Glance at a review of differentiating retraces and reversals at the starting point of each. Imagine what the trendfollowing book would have been like if the author knew the difference in a retrace and reversal at the beginning of each. Imagine what it would be like of quants knew the difference at the inception of the move. LOL..... This post will be very helpful to you. It closes out a lot of questions and it is very neat, precise and simple. But it is based on deductive reasoning and ties directly to the original hypothesis set. I guess by now you see how the pattern and nesed fractal wipes out Price Action trading. The set of 20 calls I made on Tuesday for Wednesday had one caveat stuffed in for the question you asked. I put in the test since it was a wtachable thing and it wasn't needed it turned out. Someone who phishes all thetime said the calls weren't transparent. they were still codable,though. A person could have coded them up using the test above as a go/nogo and done the day automatically. Have fun, you are on a roll.
jack, you have been at this for maybe 50 yrs, were there times in say 87(started in 78 so cant attest to prev years)where your stuff was useless, the market just got offtrack,i think this is one of those times,respectfully ,an honest question
Jack, thanks for such a detailed answer to my ongoing questions. I'm still digesting that post and will probably have further questions. I've been thinking about your "green lines", and did a drill for the week on a bbt level. Please let me know if I'm on the right track.