this is what i have worked out with regards to IF1/2 and APA i'll see how successfully i can implement it tomorrow on the ym 15 minute. icarus, i believe you can deconstruct what jack did with the IF's and APA's by simply concentrating on the chart and TD he posted. looks pretty clear to me.
A few items. The APA is a bit more detailed than has been posted anywhere in ET. I have gathered this by reading a bit between the lines. Someone somewhere was on the verge of communicating a more acute Q when grob was detailing the activity. The between the lines detail is with regards to obtaining the "Staying on the Right Side of the Market Report". It is a DOM and/or T&S M.A.D.A. which to date hasn't been posted in ET. It would actually deal with much of the fuzziness that presumably some have at the point of an action. At any point when action (trading) is initiated, the EQ is likely to be anxious for profits to immediately accumulate. The DOM and/or T&S detail is to Monitor the minority shift BSize/ASize which then follows through to the Deciding Action to stay on the Right Side. IF1, IF2 is a hyper reduction so that the drill is straight. With the aquisition of high skill, it is concievable to drop the IF1, IF2 and just SCT the DOM and/or T&S by staying on it's Right Side (a la Sexy Idea thread). The Right Side is always the minority but it is not as obvious as some have posted across ET (Scientist included). I'm still doing labwork on it and it requires ZERO data loss, hence some of my posts around ET on data loss items. I currently use a variant of IF1, IF2 on the 15M bars (hyper reduction) in order to capture at least the ABS(CLOSE - OPEN) of every 15M bar. Maybe this will raise some brows as to why SCT spectrum is broad. MAK!
I look at dom a lot. Sometimes I think I get it and understand it all, and then the next day I don´t have a clue. One thing I see often is that when price is stopping close to a s/r area and there are a lot of big orders blocking the way, sooner or later it usually breaks through the orders even if the market then goes in the other direction. At one point I thought that I could see in wich way price was heading just by looking at the pattern or rythm in wich price jumped up and down in the orderbook. It worked like a charm for a day, have never caught so many points before or after, was like I couldn´t be wrong - but again, I couldn´t repeat it, wich makes it difficult to know what it was that kept me in synch with the market on that day. Maybe just luck, I don´t know. But I think that there is something in the way that price sort of makes room in both directions before it starts to move for real, breaking through some orders to create space - that there is something there that you can learn how to interpret. I guess it´s price action on a micro level. Am I making any sense? Anyway, I mainly look at dom instead of looking at the last bar for the simple reason that it´s way bigger so it´s easier to see the fast moves. How about the rest of you, do you have any thoughts about dom, something you´ve noticed? Really interested to hear if someone has found it consistently usefull in any way. /Stalker
If I understand what you are saying, you raise an interesting point about whether we can reach a super efficiency by going to and staying on DOM (which I take to mean Bbid/Bask only) and disregarding bar to bar comparisons. To me, this is going beyond even Perspective C (bar to bar comparison of faster bars within the bar), to which my gut says is a tough path to go down in search of better performance, at least with respect to the ES. My experience tells me that coarse monitoring is always essential, even for an RHR method such as SCT, and on days like today--neither a W nor M--how much more can SCT extract over sitting in the tape on the slower fractal? Nonetheless, I am interested in hearing more details about what you are saying, and do realize that I may be overly restricting what I read from you. In any event, I do feel as you do that there ought to be more to APA than what's been written so far, or at least in implementing APA. In practice it is not an infrequent occurrence that price will return to the entry price, and even play around there a bit, prior to settling on a direction. I do have ideas about monitoring other things in addition to position relative to entry price, and I think it can be detected, through coarse monitoring, that some APAs, strictly defined, need not be implemented at all, and I think this can be said for IF2 as well. Moreover, with respect to the IF2 rule itself, I wonder whether IF2 gets me in at the best spot, since it seems to me that reversing on the BO of the prior bar going the other way is trading on the shorter length of the original parallelogram, and that even though the reversal gets me in on the right side of the market with respect to the new parallelogram, I enter on the left side of that traverse channel and have to wait out the left to right traverse that sometimes occurs within a bar or two or even the same bar. Even here, I do have my own ideas about detecting when the left to right comes right away and when no chance of a wash will arise. The rules are, however, straightforward and do not contain any qualifications, although I know that as with all truths, it cannot be true for me without putting it through my own experience, and I have yet to do this. Hopefully I have written something that can be understood by others to further this discussion. It is rather late in the night but I feel it is more important to put this out here while I can rather than wait for tomorrow and run it through a couple of tries when it is likely I will change my mind for the reason it will take too much effort to put my thoughts on the subject into words that others can understand.
I believe the pieces have been all laid out on the table and have also been practiced with. I know we will soon reach a level of self-sufficiency from which there can be no turning back, and from which new things will appear to the consciousness that will give ideas for rapid improvement in performance. You and I have talked about this in PM and I can add that a person trading the minimum for months to grow his account from $8000 to $20,000 did not do so as a result of doing things haphazardly. One does not make 240 ES points trading 1 contract over hundreds of trades in an assortment of market conditions because of luck. Knowledge was required. Not much, just what is sufficient, but the person did not have it at the start. The person had no experience growing an account at the start. Skill was required to apply the knowledge and experience, and skill was developed and has been acquired. The proof of that is in the result of growing the account, which is the only worthwhile proof there is. Now the person has this and it can never be taken away, even if the account diminishes through doing things, for whatever reason, outside of what the person knows and has the skills to do well. You ask for my best guess at the mystery. My feeling is that a person crosses that point of no return on the path toward what he truly wants in his heart when he willingly let's go of what he holds onto for security against what he deems as âfailure.â A further discussion of this is beyond the interest of a place like ET and would likely provoke outbursts from people resembling discussions of religion in chit chat. But that is what I think and feel and if it is true then it explains a lot to me about a lot of things trading and otherwise.
Well I guess I share in the responsibility for responses like this. Would it be asking too much to read the entire sentence from which you took that snippet you quoted in your post? That way there would be some chance to see that I was commenting on the necessity of coarse monitoring and pointing out the benefits vis-a-vis SCT on A DAY LIKE YESTERDAY rather than making a statement that coarse monitoring is to be preferred over SCT or questioning the usefulness of SCT. I'm interested in learning more about SCT, hence my post. If I come off a bit cranky, don't take it the wrong way, I'm really a sweetheart with my usual hours of sleep. Cheers.
Icarus said "If I understand what you are saying, you raise an interesting point about whether we can reach a super efficiency by going to and staying on DOM (which I take to mean Bbid/Bask only) and disregarding bar to bar comparisons." I simply cannot see anything but the flag moving up and down the pole which hypnotises me into a stasis where I cannot act when the flag moves down the pole during my long. There is little sense of time during this minimum motion so I find it hard to calibrate solely from the bar ends. I am handicapped I say, on 5m bar endings. So does this mean I shall accept my demise? (hell no!) "...To me, this is going beyond even Perspective C (bar to bar comparison of faster bars within the bar)," Where might I find this "Perspective C" you speak of? Is this what I have been doing all this time. So my illegal charts aren't exactly illegal (ok, maybe partly, but I still annotate the 2m/5m religiously). ...to which my gut says is a tough path to go down in search of better performance, at least with respect to the ES. Not as tough as you would think IMO Icarus. Ok, you do have to kick it up a notch on your MADA because you're annotating another pair of YM/ES charts on a faster fractal but the end result is a very rich coarse/medium data set from which to decide/act and we haven't gotten to fine monitoring yet..well maybe a touch if you consider the lime/red bid/ask thingy I have on the attached chart. I agree with your assessment of SCT on a day like yesterday. I am annotating 5m traverses and channels on several faster fractal charts (what do you call this again, Perspective C...very cool) and can see and am beginning to mentally catalog the formations your 5m bar makes on the faster fractal (the lateral is my fav). I think the channel tilt cues us to the velocity of the channel in question and it's width cues us to volatility and gives us the potential on the takings for the reversal (or was that backwards...anyway the tilt and width is something to consider for a reversal). To reverse is a decision we make based on what we have in front of us. It is not a requirement in SCT as far as I can tell. Come on...who's with me? (banging on table) S C T!...S C T!...S C T ! (see attached).