Close-up snip of yesterday's up container breakout and todays session with new down container. 2/21/18-2/22/18 The chart has been (correctly) updated. The blue dashed line is the RTL of the sell-off container, which now has pt1, pt2,and pt3. What is next? Did it occur today? The rectangle in the volume pane is Band A... perhaps provides a clue. As reminder, it is a 15min NQ, RTH only, I use as reference.
This is what I see. Since you've mentioned the A band, I'll comment from the RDBMS perspective. Seeing the context of the prior bars might change the the following. Bar11:00 is an OB. Depending on where it is in the OOE a PP4 or PP5. The following bar is an assigned P1. The following bar is a T1 so it sets the RTL. This bar is also the FTT of the prior long trading fractal. The first A band is set by the above two bars. It's a smaller zone than what you have defined. Bar11:45 is a P2. The following bar is an EE - Ag hvbo. This bar is assigned P1. The RTL is accelerated. A BM is placed at the low. Next bar is IB so wait but is could be a BO of this accelerated short tape to the long. Following bar does not have followup volume for the long it reverses and breaks the RTL long of the prior two bars. It is an OB but not an EE since the volume is decreasing so T1. The RTL short from bar11:45 gets fanned. The last bar of 2-21 is a P2. The next bar is confusing at first because it is not degapped on the chart. Mentally degapping the bar makes the opening bar of 2-22 geometrically within the carryover short. If the carryover wasn't done then it looks like a bull bar and a BO,T1. Lets say the carryover was done, then this volume bar is a T2P and the following a T2F. This T2F < T1 so it's an EE - Fd lvbo. Being an Fd makes the next bar an assigned P1 which would be the low of the day up to that point. This bar and the one before make a StR. StR, StB and OB frequently are around points of change. Bar7:15 is a T1 and sets the RTL for the non-Dom traverse. A Lateral is established at bar7:45 and although the fourth bar of the lateral extends past the lateral boundary the lateral is still in effect since there are not two closes outside it. Bar9:30 is a P1. Bar9:45 and Bar10:00 set up the next A band. Bar10:15 is a P2, the following a T2P. Bar10:45 is a T2P > a P2 which makes it a Bc EE. The next bar is an assigned P1. This sets the RTL for the non-Dom traverse. It's non-Dom since volume is decreasing. Bar11:45 is a BO,T1 of the fanned RTL from 10:45. The last bar of the day is a P2 of the trend short that started at bar11:45. We use the prior bar's high at pt1 and bar11:45's high as pt3. Bar12:00 is a new pt3 for the short. It could have also been a BO,T1 but it broke the RTL on decreasing volume, if it was defined as that then the last bar would also be a BO,T1. The opening bar will either be a P1 and continuing the short or a T1 and setting a RTL for a long traverse. PRV or pace lines would give an early indication of the above on opening volume.
Thanks for the bar numbers. If you include more bars in your chart, it'll be easier to see the geometry and the nested fractals. Is the shaded purple between bars for OB's? If so, distinguishing between OB's with short vs long sentiment will be helpful as well as shading your Stitches. Bar 18,19 looks more like a hitch. Simples, have you explored the DB functions of Ninja? It seems like it could create an automated log of bar cases. With that framework, the other elements could be auto-logged as well. Something that I suspect is a common stumbling block with this method is the mutation of price cases as a bar is formed. Time slicing the bar mutations would assist seeing how price migrates with volume. The next thing on the chart to annotate would be the ftt's.
Thank you @Sprout... Bar-by-bar commentary is an extremely effective way for MY learning and knowledge development. I've printed your post along with my attachment and will study it. I love Aha moments!! I appreciate your time and effort taken in the post. There are 2 aspects of JHM 2.0 that have always confused me, and make it very difficult (for me) to deploy MADA **AND** ACTUAL TRADING, IN REAL-TIME. 1) JHM 1.0/1.5 states, and is included in the teachings of JH and ST, that volume dictates what the container is. To me, JHM 2.0 is tuned to sub-fractals, evidenced by EEs, elimination of visual containers and many times elimination of at least one level of gaussian. Yet, 3 levels of containers continues to be prescribed for optimum performance. Still, 2.0 lesson charts seldom, if ever, describe containers, show where trades were entered or exited (JH said usually 30-40 trades a day... 2.0 suggests many of those would be sub-fractal, akin to something I call fishing), and leave the student hanging to carryover 3 levels of undescribed containers, when to do (or not) degapping, and of course do MADA in real-time and trade! 2) PRV and pace are critical with the absence of the mentioned visuals. In reality, in real-time, PRV must be witnessed, and is only applicable to time-based bars, while pace is usually benchmarked on a dataset of several days or longer, but has some flexibility since it can be imposed on a predefined, or a dynamic look-back period of volume. I have a proprietary tool I call the pace needle. It deals with PRV on my trading chart. I'm writing a new tool to draw pace levels (regardless of time frame) and to also provide the associated pricebar volatility. Think of the Volume/Volatility data that Mak put together. My point is... the visuals, the containers and gaussians in JHM 1.0/1.5 are geared to real-time trading, PRV and Pace are "finer tools". The visuals once learned, are generally simple to annotate for later analysis. For the most part, the PRV and Pace must me analyzed in real-time to be useful. Not always correct annotations is part of what makes life fun, imo. Since I use fast charts most days, sub 5 minute, 2 minute my primary, the visuals, coupled with my on-demand knowledge/usage of what I see going, works pretty well in real-time. Sub fractals seem much more MADA intensive, geared for the slower yet still considered fast time frames. JMO. Thanks again Sprout. BTW... pretty clear what today's (2/23/18) open was... our analysis differs a little but we arrived at the same place... I hinted the 12:45 bar was an ftt.
I see that most of / all the traders discussing Jack Hershey / spydertrader methods, before getting a decent understanding, diverge from the basic tenets / recommendations. This makes the learning process more challenging, if not impossible. The futures method was introduced on ES, on the 5 minute chart. Both Jack and spydertrader recommended starting the learning with a coarser level. Later, as skills are acquired, the trader can graduate to faster fractals, and finer tools.
Good idea! I've changed so that area is blue and red (translucent) according to OB colour. I've tried making OB bars themselves coloured, though when annotating manually bar by bar and iteratively, the coloured area seems less intrusive than multiple colours on price bars. Bar 18-19: 19 is OB short bar. There's in fact very few hitches and stitches if any at all on this timeframe, with or without degapping. I just color stitches as OBs and hitches as IB, but that maybe not enough? Automating the price case annotations is very simple. Hardest part of automating any of this is understanding (grok'ing) all the rules, as the computer need them to be complete in the program code. I can automate most anything in NT, though would prefer just to put it all into one indicator and access everything from within class variables of that indicator. So it'll work just like a DB and be simple to cross-reference different parts of it. I appreciate there's nuances of time slicing and trading within 1 bar, something I've no practical experience with, though I understand it's importance with this method. Remembering: FTTs Automated price bar number and cases (excluding XR and XBs as they are so plentiful), though not had the time to annotate more yet: Even though the bar numbers are high, they are accurate and should provide a better reference. At this scale the vertical grid lines work differently and don't provide as much reference and manual annotations not so effective either. Ie. former bar number 18-19 is 3943-3944.