Spydertrader's Jack Hershey Futures Trading Journal

I think you mean the 11:25 bar on the 15th. I went back and reviewed my recording of the session and during the formation of that bar a few things stand out: The YM at the time 'peaked' out on decreasing black volume, then started down on increasing red volume. A wall appeared suddenly at 1441.50 (the ask)(I believe) and price immediately moved away, never to return. (Well at least for a couple hours.)

Hope this helps.

-Mike

 

Good job, you still identified the pt 3! And using only January's tool. So what if it took halfway to see it, remember the ES chart is the 'coarsest' tool and price at action points are more like action 'zones'. We are not going to see it is a pt 3 right at the first second the bar starts, this level of precision is not available with just the ES chart, that is why we have the other tools to fine tune.

Remember in an uptrend, decreasing black volume results in lateral price movement, which we had on this bar, relative to the previous 3 bars. I believe the prv started increasing later in the bar's formation.

-Mike

 

I ended up doing the "CHG/NOC at bar close drill" in real-time this morning for about 3 hours. It became apparent in short order that the Forest fractal would be my fractal of choice this morning.

Since I was at the Forest level, I was looking for CHG when price was approaching RTL's. This means although I annotated "candidate" FTT's, I considered them to be NOC at this resolution. Therefore, I had fewer CHG signals than Bi9.

For me, the drill was very worthwhile and it seems reasonable to spend effort with this until I'm very comfortable identifying CHG/NOC on a bar-to-bar basis. As much as I'd like to be able to carve tighter turns (with finer tools), I realize I'm not there, yet. Hopefully some day, LOL.

Anyway, if you want to test your CHG/NOC skills, this is a good drill to do in real-time.

FWIW,

spooz

 

Thank you bi9foot.

I looked again at Spyder's drawing and understand it better now.

I highlighted the asymetry I think we should be looking for. I always looked with a littlebit coarser view at the tic chart which works fine but you lose a few more ticks.

This means theoretically we can enter just one tick away from the optimal entry..

regards,
Ivo

<IMG SRC="http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1571492">

 

Spyder - thank you. That post is frameable. I will print. One of the best insights into the correct psychology that I have read in e-trdr (along with some of JHs posts).

 

it pays to pay extra attention when the battle takes place near the RTL, the clear winner dictates the next direction.

 

Honestly, you are going to be disappointed. Losing ticks? What do you think is missing from your picture? There is NO SILVER BULLET TICK! For you esignal users, plot the newly range/tick bar plot for your enlightenment. Then plot on the same chart the bid and the ask and WATCH VERY CLOSELY. You will then have the range chart overlayed with the bid and the ask and you will see how the DOM moves ahead of the range chart. This too has noise but WHO CARES. At any level, who cares about the noise. If your ATM is working properly (ie. dispensing), you won't care even at the forest level unless you are driven to improve.

There is a confluence of things that just fit VERY snugly together. When we talk about anticipation, it is the realm in which your confirmation is the precursors to the event that will lift your trade. Why bracket before a fed announcement??? Because volume is going to push the price right out of the zone it is currently residing in...

So how many precursors do you get before a two pair??? What is the profile of volume before the 2 pair? What does STR/SQU look like? Where is P with respect to the channel? The YM? Flaws?

2 Pairs aren't any sort of solution to your trading. They are just a resolution. However, if you can't bank the opportunities at the channel resolution, the finer resolutions will not make much sense.

The idea is to know and be comfortable with what the picture looks like at each resolution. This is why I commented about how 2pairs look like on flags. When the DOM finally came around, it was immediately apparent to Jack what the two pair must look like on DOM with respect to liquidity (minority). I long for the day when some tool eventually shows us the full DOM queue on all 4 sides instead of just 2.

Is my trading handicapped for not having the capability? No! The point is, there will always be noise of some sort, however, the focus is to data-gather the important stuff and filter out the noise. It is near impossible to get a noiseless picture. Just work on understanding the picture. For this resolution, the details are, the dominant side of a bid/ask (ie. where are most of the trades firing at with respect to liquidity - bsize/asize), AND the DOMINANT PAIR (ie. 2pair). If you can piece together, the minority, liquidity, T&S, and 2pairs into a neat 4 piece picture that makes sense to you, you'll get the "aha" which is not to be confused with the "I think I get it" or the "Is this right spyder?". A long while ago, I got rid of the "I think I get it" because usually it means "I really don't get it". Instead I dwelled on "aha"s. If you THINK you get it, then you probably "DON'T" get it because when you DO get it, it makes perfect sense and you can easily recognize it on the chart because you know EXACTLY what the picture looks like even though you hadn't seen it before... In other words, you know exactly what it looks like and when you see it for the first time, it looks exactly like what you thought it would look like...

MAK

 

ivob,

Perhaps this will help clarify the key aspects of 2pair, as I understand them.

Regards,
- Talas

 

(See attached 2pair mark up)

Regards,
- Talas

 

I’m hoping someone would critique my thought process on a point 3 channel I redrew/adjusted on this morning’s ES chart.

My original channel used bar 9:40 as point 1, bar 9:50 as point 2, and 10:10 as point 3. Using January’s tools, I concluded “continuation” for each subsequent bar including the 10:35 bar which crossed my RTL. Using PRV and Gaussians I concluded it was most likely a flaw and I should “hold”—in other words—“continuation”—even though the RTL was violated. I then adjusted my channel using the 10:35 bar as my point 3.

Here’s my question: Was my thought process ok? Under what conditions, if any, is it alright to “hold” through a RTL violation?

-river