I was hoping if you could tell me if I was learning correctly. I do not expect you to give me fish. I just do not want to get stuck doing the same thing wrong for a prolonged period of time. Iterative refinement to me means learning correctly. When you say compare and contrast, i wanted to make sure I am comparing the right variables. I am currently comparing where the 5,2,3 fast and slow line xrossing eachother in comparison to the 14,1,3 (usually above or below 50%)and also using the 5,2,3 50%. I am also using volume as a confirmation variable. I find that using the 5 2 3 50% by itself is not profitable w/o the inclusion of another variable you are comparing. Also, thanks for the reinforcing words at the end of the reply. Things are really starting to click. Especially continuation modus(rockets) among different fractals(migration).
I atached a quickie chart on today. There are three 50% trades on the 5,2,3 that you can do. Look for the precursors I have marked before you get to the 5,2,3 signal. This way you can go in on the prior signals and use 5,2,3 to confirm as it crosses the 50% The MACD is really a good leading indicator for the 50% 5,2,3 THe nicest and easiest isthe low volume that tells you a blast is coming up soon. These reversals are aftr inside bars. PRV gives you the new trend direction since volume blasts the price in the trend direction. Nicely for each you have the leading indication of FTT in each case too. On 5,2,3 you have the clean divergence across the 50% by the third signal from the MACD signal sequence starting with the Max(mkin),convergence, then xover. divergence follows as you go through the 5,2,3 diverging. All this may sound like overkill, but it is just a case where everything is working and corroborating the entries for making good runs. Of course the major major clue is that you are just as this happens, locking in profits from the prior trade on the FTT.
Grob109 - could you walk us through 14:30 (around bar 60) to the close today? Things got rather tricky for me during this time... we start out in a decent long channel -- no worries through bar 69... then things get ambiguous... my read was that we had a new pt 3 followed by a FT then a new short channel starting around bar 74. Obviously this is incorrect because we get that big jump up (bar 76)... short channel??- no! another jump up (although this 2nd is after close of cash markets). I'm interested to know how you interpreted this particular sequence -- and what were the KEY pieces of information guiding you through. Thanks in advance JT
I appreciate the chart with the illustrations. Using the 5,2,3 50% is really great when the conditions work for the slaloming indicator. Sometimes though like yesterday starting at around 3pm, the indicators do not work and actaully gets you whipsawed. What happens is under certain conditions the indicator does not give signals that one would want to take. Its almost as if their is an on or off switch. If i was able to know when to turn it off, then things would be extremely smooth. Currently, it seems that the off switch would occur under DU conditions(sometimes) and also during a lateral trend with a small range. Sidelining during the DU is pretty simple. My problem is with sidelining during lateral trends where the 5,2,3 50% xrossover gets one whipsawed. It usually takes 2 losses before I realize that we are most likely in a lateral trend. I have started to try to wash on that second loss and sideline after that. Is this the right way to go about it? Since you are the originator of the 5 2 3 settings, you would know when the on or off button is generated and under what cicumstances your algorithm does not work. I am currently going through the math of the 5,2,3 stoch 50% xrossover too get a better understanding of when the "off" and "on" switch may occur.
I use bar 69 to start the end of the day. The activity of Mutuals, day traders and bottom fishers occur in this period. So it can be irregular if their interests are not aligned. Usually they aren't. Futures relates to the cash as usual. so the 2min INDU/YM is helpful. Volume gives you the pace and it fudges among two levels usually. If the fast pace is not one of them, then you get some range trading. Range trading is best thought of as a "box" and price is in it. Boxes are lateral untrending places. Within, you can use the STOC for slaloming and it is not rhythmic always. Now we can talk about the Whipsaw and it's converse slaloming. Being at a given point to start, you either go into a whipsaw or, the opposite, a slalom. In the four steps, you begin with the same data. So step one is an unlikely place for screwing up. The staight forward process of monitoring the data and getting it inside your loop (head) is clear. Step two analysis, is a good place to start. You suggest turning off data. Maybe on the other hand you could process it. The formulae do shut down when data is unchanging. The 5, 2, 3 has a good "left side" characteristic. Said another way, it has "earlier signals to begin things. The STOC stuff is lower on the analysis list than the P, V, Trend, formations, and other leading indicators of price. You look at P,V on both the chart and the DOM. All the indicator analysis is time based and sequence oriented. By the time you get to it, you have a clear context of market pace and a reference context of the last time you did an analysis. You do focus on things as a hunter would, you look primarily at what is moving if anything. That which doesn't change is going to have to be affected by what did change sooner or later. The sequencing dynamic is at play for everything in a relationship connection. All of this heightens the contrast for either slaloming or not. The not is an end effect of not being able to slalom any more. the first slalom is result of profit taking and continuing to be set up on the right side of the market for more profits. All of the above is slow, coarse stuff. For most people, there is no continuity nor planning in their monitoring. The next couple of sentences are going to be really important and can swing a person's performance as a sea change as big as night and day. Try to imagine the difference between "looking for something" and "focusing on making money". If a person is looking for something, They are doing "go/no go" tests. If a person is focusing on making money, they are doing data gathering and analysis. It is night and day to look for a signal and to "process" signals. Read a post by anyone who is a go/no go person. For them any alternative "can't be done", if the alternative involves monitoring to make money. The sweeping four steps over and over is what connects all the miriade of prioritized signals that meld into a path for profits. The go /no go, as we have hears is simple and not that difficult. It is S. R, trendlines and channels. You can see, simply, that all of those are go/no go; you have the point or value or you do not have the point or value. Doing monitoring as a process is iterative and, therefore, everything means something by its presence and especially its absence. The concept of sequences and "tuning" indicators to markets are examples of the continuity of monitoring instead of looking for something. Often those "lookers" are giving total impotance to one "looked for" signal. If they get it they do what is called in ET "a reaction". They do R/R and stuff to determine success. I am advocating following the dynamic of the market at all times and approaching each place that calls for "action" by doing the four steps repeatedly and learning to anticipate what is next. As you learn and do this, then you get to act as you complete the sequences. The other facet is the things that come along to see that stop the sequences of money making. Pro-actively you fold these into the analysis and decide that action is called for. For go /no go people these are called drawdowns that they sit through until their R/R protection is hit instead of their R/R target for exiting no matter what. I am suggesting that you are doing well as you write what you do. You are saying that up to a certain point in the day things are gong along and you make sense of the trades you are doing until....... I suggest that you do the UA thing. University of Arizona writes "Bear Down " on roofs. and they do it in sports. Make yourself work on the sweep of the monitoring to have all you need to go to analysis. While in analysis phase, decide where to get "new" info. For the period you mention (today now) we, here, are slaloming while we see our channel lines had FTT on the long channel (we drew two similar ones) and I proposed a slow short at 90 degrees to the long. this is bearing down by anticiapting. We also felt a lat was in the works based up on volume being low and no "short" volume bursts. We eaked out the last short off the top of the lateral we have supermposed on the "short". We left the short at 14:58 simply because the travere was not performing. (flaw time on low volume.) This points out to you that we sidelined when it gets very dull. This is the opposite of thinking that two FTT's would dissapear and then new highs be hit WITHOUT greater volume than ever before this pm. "It ain't going to happen" so to speak. But you monitor to see that "anything" can happen by sequencing in an orderly flow of no flaws. Our focus here is to intently look for what is changing and under what succession of changes. This sentence will be very helpful. What makes it all work all the time is the continuity of the migration of the market. Whipsaw is not part of it after you get to "bear down". You are so far away, now, in your posts, from the go/no go thinking. The thing that happens is the KISS operating. You stay focused on the "change" within the "context". Almost all the time your "action" after the decision turns out to be "hold" and profits continue to acrue. Today the am and pm have good "longs" that set the context. PRV immediately clues you in as to whether to slalom in a lat or take a resume of the trend.
I'll go out on a limb here and give a metaphor to contrast these two approaches: one is like Paul Desmond playing sax on "Time Out" and the other is my PC using a MIDI sax to play Paul Desmond playing "Time Out". You've said a million times that when sweeping through the 4 steps to action - the typical action is "hold" ... i finally get this particular concept. Also thanks for the tip on bar 69 and "bearing down". Also - this post is really good stuff for me because the concepts you are discussing have been at the fore in my mind over the past few days. Also your comparisons with Danto - your many past comparisons with sailing. It's all sinking in (pun intended). I love music - I play and write and I have for about 20 years. Other wizards have compared the market to music. Again (as with many things) I only got this in a superficial way. Now I'm seeing that this similarity is much deeper than I originally understood and there is a leap of faith required to get there -- namely one where you let go of the "go/no go" mentality. Great stuff! JT