Comments are within quoted text. Something similar to the above quote, one of the statements that I took as true that I eventually came to conclusion that my interpretation of the statement was incorrect is the concept that ALL gaussians sequences MUST complete. Well, I suppose this is true for the given context it was originally presented within. However, the market has demonstrated that this is not true all the time. Trends can and are interrupted at anytime. The updated context is that (without the arrival of Dominant volume in the opposite price direction), volume gaussians will complete - on this timescale or a faster one.
I think the above is wrong conclusion. "Price trend will not change until volume complete sequences on all fractals." - is cardinal rule of JHM. Without that rule it could be anything but JHM.
Sure, I agree with your sentiment. If you wouldn't mind, let's see the exact quote from Jack and it's context. The above statement can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I first came across that concept with Spydertrader's TL thread. The way I misinterpreted it was that a trend on a larger timeframe must complete it's volume gaussians on that timeframe. I also assumed that gaussians and volume events were equivalent. A more accurate statement is that the volume OOE's must complete before the start of a new trend with similar fractal sized containers. Jack advocated the use of the Johari window. I haven't come across the "Price trend will not change until volume complete sequences on all fractals." statement by him, so I missed it, if it indeed exists. Volume sequences and volume gaussians are not the same thing. Volume sequences can complete within a gaussian. There can be multiple gaussians for a particular volume event. Jack's RDBMS defines this exactly, without flaws, anomalies or exceptions. By it's very design it has defined all possible permutations of price and volume movements. If one treats the 10 price cases and the 11 volume elements as a multiplication table, a complete set comes into view. That set can be divided into like-to-like buckets giving the 56 unique and individual components. I speak from applying my understanding of Jack's writings, doing every drill I could find, coming up with some of my own drills and applying it to experience the turning point of consistent profitability. My understanding experienced a higher-order level of congruency by recently completing his "20 days to expert" challenge. Exercising MADA manually leads to a very different place than having it performed programmatically.
Recall, the point is... containers are defined through volume, not through visual geometry. On MY trading fractal... that's a good one sprout! It reminds me of a scene in My Cousin Vinny ... perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were these magic grits?!? It applies to 2-bar geometry as well, it is just not seen in a volume histogram. 1,2,3,ftt,whatever, are fungible in that it is a point, not necessarily the same point, in at least one (or more) faster, AND possibly one (or more) slower fractals. You mentioned there are 100's of fractals on the chart. I agree. It's interesting Jack suggested annotating geometry and gaussians of 3 fractals, and simultaneously used 7 pace levels. That's because he knew there were more than 3 fractals with any time-based chart, and pace is an aid in seeing. Please note, I agree visual geometry of 2-bar (and other fractals) in real-time is fine for a coarse generalized view as long as its in-accuracy is considered. That means using some sort of application of the sequence(s) being monitored, whatever application that may be. Huh? Lateral formations an "indicator" of sub-fractals asserting dominance? Huh? I'm currently doing all sorts of study and stuff with laterals. I've never seen anything described even remotely as you've mentioned. It's either an Aha or some invention. Im on the side of some invention, at this time. As I've mentioned before, my primary trading chart is 2min. I trade tapes(lately) point-to-point, and when I have a well defined wider container, I attempt to hold through for wider container point. I am not SCT, but I do quite of daily trading. Agree. As mentioned above.
FWIW I agree with stepan and tiddlywinks. That is Spyder's teaching in a nutshell. This is the cardinal difference between what Jack was doing later on and what Spyder did imo. Spyder defined containers with price AND volume requirements, and three identical containers completed the X2X 2Y 2X of a slower fractal. Spyder spoke pretty clearly late in his thread about how you need to make the 2Y and the 2X just how you made the X2X. He was clear that there is are minimum requirements needed to build certain fractals, and price will keep going until we get that. Jack often watched the visible fractal which doesn't always have the same rhyme or reason and the sequences aren't visible. I can see where you're coming from Sprout, but you're looking through the lens of the RDBMS and bar by bar tapes and it doesn't seem like you've had the aha moments for fractal integrity and the objective consistency of the x2x2y2x gaussian sequence. That definitely isn't the end all of the method, seeing as Spyder was profitable back when he was jumping fractals, before he was even drawing complete gaussians. But doing what you're doing compared to looking at the big picture sequences is like apples to oranges. There's going to be a lot of mis-communications trying to compare the two.
Thank you for your comment. I've been hoping to delay responding directly to you, prior to accomplishing the thing that you requested from me. All I can say at this time is that it's on deck and moving through milestones, getting ready for the first pitch of the season. Comments included in quoted text.
I am rogue!! I don't use a 5 min chart, and as far as TRADING is concerned, 4 hour is the max I look at. I shun degapping, and with disdain for bar-by-bar degapping. Carryover is a hit or miss concept because overnight prints matter. Additionally, I believe EEs ala JHv2, are not usable trade signals by themselves and they promote over-trading, fractal jumping, and in general I consider fishing for a trade. Furthermore, I use astro methods(in addition to JH) to anticipate points, peaks, and troughs. Astro is anchored and immutable in TIME. FWIW, regarding lats I have a new lat-end. It's possible this is part of "retro" process (which I do not use/do), but here it is, invention or not, for you to determine... while lat remains valid, ANY pricebar that can be considered an OB to the first bar of the lat ends the lat, and is treated as an OB. That's ANY bar while the lat is active, that can be considered an OB to the lat itself. The bar is not required to be an OB to its previous bar, and it's close does not matter. End the lat, and treat the bar as you would an OB. Trade On!
Comments within quoted text. I find it a bit humorous for those whom derived value from Jack's perspective to not give the man his full due. He's a systems genius, the best thinkers of humanity are his peers. If one follows his directions, there is a realized promise. The view is witnessing the market's full offer. The market's FULL OFFER. Everything pales in comparison. It's just the way it is. It's all about slowing down the pitch and seeing the stripes on that ball. Going with the nautical analogy, it's shifting from a monohull sailboat to a hydro-foiled trimaran. Jack is a man who keeps his promises. I say this in the present tense because his thoughts and perspective live on in his writings and the discussion thereof. Cheers!
You've pissed me off sprout. I did not put Jack down, his methods, or even you for that matter. The fact is I learned directly from Jack and Spyder, did my (initial)studies with and through them, made my own determinations as to what if any portion of the teachings/methods would be valid FOR ME (and I was a profitable trader BEFORE that time), and then proceeded down MY PATH... Not Jacks path, Spyders, Heros, or anyone elses, MY path. And I have ALWAYS spoke of Jack and Spyder with respect, good memories, and internal thanks/gratitude. Get off your high fucking horse! If origami helps you trade, cool. But that remains to be determined. BTW... Yes, it would be OB to all bars WITHIN a lat. However, if adjacent to ANY bar, not just XB,XR, that pierces the boundary(s), my description stands. And it may or may not be an OB to any other bars that previously pierced boundary(s) but did not end the lat. FYI...merely piercing a boundary is not a lat-end.