Yes. Also, the original obfuscates or negates the tenet of BOT1 being an "earlybird". Placement of the BM "in context" is the operative. More surprising to me is Jacks charts are all over the place with BM, imo. Sometimes they are annotated, sometimes not. But clearly, in my analysis of his charts, they are placed on the opposite side of the context for the segment movement. What's even more surprising to me is Jacks handling of OB. Maybe I don't understand how to VTP OB... Take a simple VTP pairing and lets just keep it this simple.... P1-T1. If next is an OB, is it a T1/P2 or is it P2/T2P? Out of the gate as OB locks-in(or not), from a T1, there are basically 2 options... another T1 or a P2. Therefore I say once OB is locked in it's T1/P2 which is not an EE. After that, volume determines the VTP ID. However, if the nature of OB is determined by volume (close of bar or higher volume), it is the volume that determines which OB treatment gets applied: no longer the ID'd sequence. So although the ID'd sequence is only P1-T1, only after next has (a) locked into OB, *AND* (b) volume has exceeded T1 or End of Bar, whichever comes first, can the nature of the OB be determined. Anticipation out the window! Am I making sense? Thanks
Food for thought: OB is always going both ways. RDBMS is relational. And volume is relational too. Time to sleep
Speaking of OB... I was a little confused about them. Are all OB bars with higher volume than previous measured bar considered PP type of EE? Therefore the next translation bar will always be a P1? Also in the snip attached, how would you guys have logged from bar 26 to bar 33? I had Bar 25 XR... PP1 EE Bar 26 XB... P1 Assigned Bar 27 Sym (degapped)… Wait Bar 28 XB … T1 since lower volume than Bar 26 and it's still XB after degapping Bar 29 XR … T1 …… It didn't get below P1 so shouldn't it be T1? Or should this bar be Bo,T1? Bar 30 OB … PP5 …… Wasn't sure how the OB EE works. It's PP5 if we already have P1 and T1 yes? Bar 31 Sym (degapped)... Wait I wasn't too sure about bars 29 and 30 here.
Something that is helpful is to think ‘is more like’ or ‘is less like’. If Bar29’s form or sentiment was different, it would have been ‘more like’ a bar to include in a long trend. In this case, it’s ‘more like’ a bar to include in a short by it’s XO of a rtl established by a T1. Therefore, Bar29, XR, BO,T1, BM at high. Tentative rtl drawn for anticipation. Bar30, MADA view, unless the bar was a high volatility bar, the following sequence occurred. Intrabar, the bar opens and arrives short with a T1 in volume, attempting to resume the longer trend short. As soon as it XO the prior bar’s extremes, it and volume are measured. The fact that it’s not EOB is noted. Bars change form often prior to EOB. We know that there is a larger short context in effect in that there are XR’s with IV and XB’s with DV (characteristics of a Dom and non-Dom short trend segments when considered with the current geometry) However, IV in the short failed to arrive, so it reversed off the low and XO, the rtl established by it being a T1 intrabar. Before it XO’d the rtl it XO’d it’s own doji, changing the bar’s sentiment from short to long. Before that event occurred, there was an ftt at the tape level. The tape uses the tentative rtl that was drawn with the BM. However the tape was a ve prior to it’s reversal. WCB a reversal? A retrace comes before a reversal. What makes a bar a retrace vs a reversal? Let’s keep looking how this bar builds. At some point this bar goes from DV to IV. At some point this bar goes past it’s own doji. At some point this bar goes past the prior bar’s low, it’s close and it’s high. At some point this bar presented as a BO,T1. Then it showed BM,rev. But it closed off it’s high and in a zone that made it not BM,rev. But the fact that it surpassed the prior bar’s low and high now make it into an OB. So in logging the bar, as soon as it becomes an OB, the log row is sub divided. However there is volume being measured as soon as a form allows it, which in this case was XR->StR->OB. This being done intrabar. Upon final LI or EOB, this annotation stands or fails and the final form gets logged. As an artifact. Therefore a BO,T1 in the top row and advance to next on the bottom row. This is an area that requires more differentiation for me in the placing of multiple BM’s on the OB. In this particular case I would have put it at the low of the bar reflecting the BO,T1 in the upper row and ending that short trend segment. However, the final ID was that of an OB so a BM is also assigned for that. Which indicates a BM at it’s high. Jack, in his writings, for certain cases, have supported the idea of an OB having two turns assigned to it. However, I’ve not found any chart & log pairings that have brought greater clarity to that concept as of yet. Currently I see PP4’s start with FS and not FS. That determines whether the next bar assignment is a P1 or T1. At a certain point of learning, one discovers the system is remarkably resilient. Even though one notices the cascading of re-identifying EE’s as one debriefs and makes corrections and refinements, the layering of all of Jack’s concepts is holistic in nature. They work like checks and balances. Most importantly is that it is self-correcting when viewed from receiving the market’s full offer. Making a map of the 5 entwining OOE’s at play is very supportive in putting the concepts in LTM. 1) The OOE of OOE’s 2) primary volume OOE 3) secondary volume OOE 4) test procedure OOE 5) EE band OOE. Mapping these on to a drawing of ‘the pattern’ and associated gaussians, moves, events, is an illuminating exercise. HTH
Yup, this is the OB confusion I mentioned in an earlier post. My take regarding your OB question... Regardless of volume, once OB has locked in, it is measurable. As annotated, with no analysis as to correctness/accurateness of preceding ID's, the OB is of a T1/P2 nature. Therefore, the OB, as an OB, IS NOT an EE. The fact the EOB volume was annotated as P2 does not alter the T1/P2 nature of the OB. IMO, volume DOES NOT DETERMINE the type/nature of the OB. The sequence is the sequence. The OB volume does not "alter" the type/nature of OB. Where the OB is occurring within the annotated sequence determines what the 2 levels of the OB are. Sprout mentioned 2 things in previous posts to my questions... 1) The mention/idea that "students" annotated Jacks charts. I never thought of that! That does explain inconsistencies on Jacks charts, IMO. 2) mention of a hierarchical structure for bar-by-bar analysis... a) Price pane... ten case, OB, laterals, failsafes, etc b) volume pane... wait, where in current sequence, *did*(versus "is") change occur, etc. c) EE's... change "is" occurring, ala Modrian table (or not). Once more thing I'll mention... this (segment)stuff works insanely well when paired with JH container trading! Maybe something here helps.
The intra bar stuff is so confusing.... I tried replays with reversing on every EE for few different dates. Either used eob or stop orders several ticks away from BM and RTL. It ended with about 10 points positive on those replays. It was kind of interesting to see that the result was similar in a large trending day (about 30 point range) and a smaller range (18 points or so). Using eob seems to work okay when there is decent volume but when volume is hovering around DU or VDU, using eob seems to put the early morning profits back in the grinder lol. It also gets really confusing to annotate there as well. I may not be logging them correctly as well. Regardless, although it was profitable there were some big drawdowns in between, so only using eob and EE is probably not the expert way to do this. Does the 4 trend types and 30m bar sentiments etc. have a say in execution? When should If 1 If 2 APA be utilized? Actually, most important of all, when should I be sidelining? Do you guys trade through VDU? I was under the impression that Jack avoided lunch hours because it usually doesn't give a lot of trades and increases risk. It certainly is getting dry after 12 these days.
I have some confusion regarding trend types and the use of modrian tables too. Which bar tells you the turn type for starters. Is it the EE bar? PP1 should always be dominant turn in that case? What if you get a PP1 and then a BM reverse right after with a lower volume than the last bar? Is that a dominant to nonDom? Is the modrian table just used to anticipate which type of EE will happen in the next few bars? I haven't figured out how to use segments with containers. I don't think I have figured out how to use either one yet and am focusing on RDBMS as you suggested. I hope I'll be able to see what you see in the near future Wow I feel like a bundle of questions. Just when I think I'm getting closer... I find I still don't know enough. I wonder if Jack really expected people to become experts in 20 days?
Thanks! So, in this case, I would need to watch volume as price bar forms and make note of whether it was higher or lower volume before bar formation changed. In this case the OB gave us a t1 then bo,t1 as it formed OB so we can assign a new P1 here. Seems to make sense.
Ah... the realities of real-time trading are showing up, even though you are in sim. This post will provide few, if any, "answers" for you. It is merely description of my real-time trading knowledge and market observations. In my current incarnation, it is clear to me it was/is the failsafe gizmos that causes "fishing", as I've termed it. I'm biased negatively to failsafe, so no wonder it became clear. The recent discussions have been centered around failsafes. A "filter" was fleshed out for using the earlybird gizmo, BOT1. To apply the filter, the bar must be measurable, a T1 has been ID'd previously, the bar has closed beyond the RTL. To perform such filter, EOB is used (the bar is 100% formed and complete, not merely locked in). That is a step forward!! BM-Rev on the other hand, can't be discussed yet because BM, it is determined, has a placement within a context. Context isn't binary, it is subjective: as in subject to interpretation. This is where the thread has lead us. I am not surprised in the least by your fleeting success with trading gizmo EE's. The logical question is... what is the purpose of a BM? Does it have something to do with the start of a trend, as in P1? Hmmm, some EE's are P1, others are not. Hmmm. If so, then a BM would also have a purpose for defining an RTL, which requires a second point. What are the rules for that second RTL point? Hmmmm, is some sort of parallelogram container trying to be defined by a BM? As for trading every EE... that's what the modrian table is for. Not everything is a reverse! And based on volume, not everything is a trade! As you've learned, volume and bar range(volatility) go hand in hand. And remember... for most, certainly many of the widely traded futures products, ES, NQ, YM, etc, "trade-through" is a requirement for getting filled. If a range is say 3 ES points, 12 ticks, the max you could (foolishly) expect to capture would be 10 ticks. Jack used market orders. As for big drawdown as you've mentioned, this should not occur. One of two things has happened in these cases imo... first, and this does happen, daily in NQ ugh, a one-bar pace change shows up giving no time to act without immediate acceptance of the drawdown. Note, I am not saying loss, as these one-bars tend to be wonders rather than real. MADA continues to work. Or two, you've mis-ID'd or overlooked annotations creating inaccurate boundaries (which can also mean inappropriate trading boundaries) for your segment. It's very simple to do. Automation helps. I do not use 30min, I use 15min as a reference chart, not for trading decisions. If1/2 APA stuff, rockets, etc, I've looked at. IF1/2 is intrabar stuff. No interest here. Rockets require indicators. No interest here. When you should sideline is when you are confused. I say that because I do some trading in NQ (only) in the overnight hours. Overnight, on 2 min bars that I use, normal volume is < 100 no typo, < 100. Liquidity for me is fine. Pace changes occur. Once EU joins, in the middle of the night, new, higher levels of pace and pace changes occur. ES might be different, IDK.