Since Feb 5 there has been a shift in movement on the ES. Each day after the 5th has made a higher low, a shift in market sentiment. Does a trend ( short term, or whatever ) exist here on the daily ES? Last question for Jack, Within the daily movements there are sub movements of many fractals. When looking at this day, and looking within is fractals, todays ES 5minute chart, the area from bar 19 to bar 42, how would you build this into into the bigger picture of Feb 18 ? thanks
Good one! Here's what others say about Jack: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2416646&highlight=jack#post2416646 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113310&perpage=6&pagenumber=2009 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163744&perpage=6&pagenumber=3 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1608274&highlight=annoying+bore#post1608274
As has been pointed out only the OP and two others are talking about trends (trend following dying?). The OP seems to be longer term oriented and primarily interested in trend trading firms that use OPM mostly. They may or may not be marginally successful as he observes. He uses the Covel orientation to trends, he says. Another poster adroitly comments on two of the three possible trends using a hindsight measure. This conventional definition is an excellent one for what he espouses and probably does use. For others there are several facets that interest them and one common one is how to use the context of a trend to make money. Big hog has been catching BO's today and yesterday and has explained just how he did it during the periods he was in the market. Good for him. Big hog also explained the nature of the three types of trends indirectly. The third type was explained first when he explained that a given day did not have any BO's. Non trending could be defined as a time period of no BO's. By having a trend definition any person can use that definition to link it to making money. The person who is the determinator for this thread uses one of two definitions to show long or short trends. Another person pointed out there are more than trends in market action or activity. Specifically he defines non trending as "chop". The person who only sees long or short trends may also see chop. My conclusion is that when either of his two definitions is not met he is seeing chop. My segway to trading trends to make money is done. The meat of making money is timing trades to capture trending price movement. The many methods that do trend trading have some common ingredients. 1. Trend detection comes early. 2. Ends of trends can be determined. 3. The correct side of a trend is known. 4. The fractal upon which the trend trading is done is clear to the trader. With respect to the above, there are some difficulties for those using or trying to use them. By illuminating the solutions to the difficulties, maybe it is possible to see what is left to do to improve trading trends. There are only three people on topic. One of them gave a definition. As applied to 1. above it fails to work. It is a hindsight definition. He uses a minimum of two bars to know that he knows. He comes to know; now what does he do? He sees a third bar begin. It will usually not meet his definition. It will be one of the following alternatives: SYM, FTP, FBP all inside internal formations. Other possibilites include: hitch, stitch(2), or OB none of which meet his criteria. If time passes, they may change into either of his defined cases: X B or X R. He either waits in the trade or waits on the sidelines. For any change to occur it is always unfavorable for making money if he is sidelined. If he is in the market, he either makes money or loses money, depending on how things turn out and more important when he took his position. All of these factors are assumed risk oriented. The literature is replete on how the financial industry trend trades OPM; usually the results are not statisitcally significant with respect to a market comparison on the coherent market fractal. Several off topic posters have offered a solution to the three on topic posters who have the common problem of not being early in trend determination (this affects entry AND exit). The solution is to look "inside" the envelope of the on topic posters. Topic 2 is an after effect of topic 1. Is the end of a trend when the definition is no longer met? Logic probably says yes. If the defined on topic definition is used (Not the vague Covel), then almost all new bars end a trend. The one exception is to wait until the end of the bar and give up timing trades. The stats are clear on waiting. for a longer and longer series to meet the definition, there is lesser and lesser chance that it will be met on a bar by bar basis. The OP and the determinator use different measures of trend. The OP doesn't use bars and the determinator does use bars. Bars that fail to meet the definition are known as early as the end of the bar. Financial corps trading OPM do not use bars but have many and sophisicated substitutes. Again the solution for both is to look "inside" their on topic constructs. For topic three, knowing the correct side comes a little late for the three on topic participants. Lagging trading is well shown by an alternate definition not used by the determinator and is used by the OP's interests. MA's single or combined or crossing over price. SPM was an example of dealing with lagging by adding a default constant to the indicator (s) equations (its failure is well known). There is a thread on doing the opposite of continually failing trading; it might have been a discussiion on phase angles of "right side of the market determinations". How can failing to determine the right side of the market be corrected. The best way I know of is taking the measure at the correct time. Most people figure out the "right side of the market" at the wrong time. Both the OP and the determinator and Covel do it at the wrong time. The solution is to use derivatives if logic is not available. Topic 4 deals with seeing the markets. Covel, the OP and the determinator all left half of the market variables out of their thinking. Prima Facia, this is a shortcoming. The variable they left out leads the price variable. To wrap up the repairs, it is a good idea to add other considerations not mentiioned. Next it is a good idea to combine the partial solutions to all items so that they work in concert. Finally, it is a good idea to set up a routine to include the solutions as the partnership of the trader and the market unfolds. We will have to stay off topic to invoke the utility of using trend trading. The topic is "trend following dying?" Obviously following trends is dead but the utility of trends is paramount and really makes money at high velocities. The solutions have been suggested. Lets put them together. They are: 1. Use left and right instead of up and down. 2. Look inside. 3. Invoke precision timing. 4. Apply all the looping possible. Mechanically, any level of skilled trader can mark the left and right sides of a trade using geometry. To look inside all the trader has to do is use all observable fractals by marking their left and right sides. Be sure to link the variables as well. For utility, annotate the dominant and non dominant periods of time using the leading indicator of price, which is volume. Use all observable levels within the trading fractal and make use of these left and right moves to define the beginnings and endings of trends in each fractal. Invoking precision timing comes from dealing with the trend concept of the nesting of fractals. Here, in a bizarre way, emerges the orderliness of markets and their absense of noise and anomalies. This hierarchical foundation that comes from inherent market granularity and finite mathematics, provides certainty at all times. Humans operate at 100 milliseconds and above quite congenially for doing loops (routines). Computers are faster in their looping and so they can be employed to handle greater precision when needed. So the routine is to use data processing from fine to coarse to have data sets for analysis, decision making and timely action. The on topic triad uses induction whereby they follow OODA (not many poeple know thay are doing OODA or even what OODA is. They do not want to know either). Lets say a trader takes trades 20 to 40 times a day as is shown by simple market moves during the day. If less trades are taken, then they will be 1/3rd of the above or 1/9th of the above. The basis of this longer hold and fewer traders is the logic of looping and the hierarchical relationship of the nested fractals. Lets drill into any trader's thinking process during a trade. As he trades on one fractal, he uses the next faster fractal to see the parts of the fractal he trades. There are three parts. He holds through all three and complets a trade on his trading fractal. Take the first trade this AM after the carry over fractal completed. Ti was a short that jasted 5 or six five minute bars on the ES 5 minute chart. It was 14 two minute bars long on the YM. When trading a profit segment on the ES, any trader can make it more precise by looking at the next faster fractal. YM bar 7 began the trade on ES in bar 3. THe single 5 to 6 bar trade on ES shows as three trends on the YM. By knowing the hierarchical relationship of fractals, the trader follows the order of events on his trading fractal and the faster fractal. Dominant moves are shown on volume in both fractals. So are the non dominat moves. ES bar 4 is the non dominant move in black bars on the YM. All is well with the trader since he knows the final (third move) is coming up on the following bars which are dominant. By 8:00am (in tucson) the short is completing and soon a long trade will follow. The order of events repeats with a long orientation and 8:30 arrives. Two trades on the ES and 6 moves on the YM. Over these two trades there is no net price change on either the YM or ES. A trader only doing a few trades a day may not take either of these tTrades or just the ones that have BO's (both do and the net is a measure less because precision timing is not used by BO traders or edge traders). The YM is used simply because it ia another advantage to the trader. YM leads the ES. There is a giant difference between using logic and doing inductive based betting. Here we see betting is on topic and trend trading deductively is off topic.
While there is some truth in Jack's post---- what a tremendous amount of complication for such a simple situation. terrible
makloda, Thanks - I'm also on the TB forum... I was trying to broaden my horizons, but you seem to be right!
This is almost as obfusicated as Jack Hershey.... a long lost cousin perhaps?? So 3 moves/bars in one direction with constant volume bars is trend? What tests have you conducted to indicate that the next bar/move will be in the same direction? what were the results of these tests and can you post the complete criteria here so that it can be verified? As the Trend Heretic genius Marketsurfer once wrote, if you flip a coin 5 times and get 5 heads , are you in a heads trend?? Sony
Whoa, that is seriously harsh. Why the personal attacks? Back on topic--- you say BAR BASED OSCILLATIONS, not me. The language tricks, claims and anecdotal evidence mean nothing. Just admit that you WISH this method worked, or BELIEVE that it works but have no testable proof or even a framework that can be tested. By the way, based on your description, not mine, the method is simply not testable as it constantly changes and remains vague. Sony