What do these three situations say to you?

Thank you for your response.

We fifth graders often have a discussion similar to the questions you raise. “I know.” “Does she know?” "Does she know that I know?” “Does she know that I know that she knows?”…

That line of thinking makes my head hurt. I sincerely hope that type of analysis works for you. For me, I find I get better results and fewer headaches if I simply focus on the volume traded on each bar without any regard to the motivation of those who transacted.

-river

 

Yes, it’s reasonable to have look-up tables, fifth graders would delight in seeing the unfolding events, and of course they would focus on whether or not the next event was arriving.

I didn’t mean to imply that all fifth graders cannot use look-up tables, just this fifth grader. I would get lost, sidetracked, or utterly frustrated in trying to implement the intricate pieces of your RDBMS long before I could piece everything together correctly. This is just one of my many deficiencies. If nothing else, public school is rather efficient at exposing one’s weaknesses.

As you have said before, the market offer each day is so great that “good enough” gets the job done. My focus is on reaching a consistent “good enough” each day.

That said, in the spirit of iterative refinement (the concept, not the ET thread) I would like to change my public school question I posed to you a few posts above to a fifth grade Montessori school question:

Using a public school fifth grader toolset(as described yesterday), how can we just trade the long diagonal of the container?

We fifth graders think we see a “c” turn but in reality the market gives us “b” to “a” turns, sometimes repeatedly, before the actual “c” turn arrives. We would like to eliminate this series of “unnecessary” reversals because the more times we hit “T”, the more opportunities we have to muck things up.

Eventually, we would like to reach the sixth or seventh grade where on each “M” or “W” day we only hit “T” at bar 1 and then again at the end of each of the four containers (We call them traverses) and once more, if necessary, to exit.

Any thoughts on my revised question?

-river

 

-Yawn- boring...

 

Ouch. A sarcastic comment on an anonymous message board from a user name I don’t recall seeing before today. That really hurts.

-river

 

Thank you for pointing out this nuance.

Under the topic of permission, I posted a series of gates and kills.

In the 10 cases for price bars. These functions deal with laterals. Laterals some times continue past the defining bar.

As you see I shaded the boxes for all the cases. These functions are carried to the volume pane mathematically.

For laterals you see a yellow background on both the price and volume pane. This highlights bar 7 of a lateral. And you see a "3" on volume which stands for bar 3 of the lateral.

You also see that none of this math really works at all because TN bars are not degapped as it is not a cost effective priority of TN they say. I put in the correct math and work around the degapping problem mentally.

For lateral bars greater than 3 I put a function on the display by numbering the subsequent lateral bars up to 11. I also use orange annotated rays to keep track of where BO's occur on laterals.

Here are the remaing details (I am posting then in one place for our convenience). On my log I use the word "retro" next to the entry lat4 and label a column to the right of the events column with retro. This is for me to name bar 4 and onward using the OOE's for every bar hance. (this is where your work revealed to you the additional T1 on bar 36 and not on bar 35.

the purpose of labelling each bar in a lateral after the lateral is defined is the keep cases permission consistent (all two bars cases and the lateral a 3 bar case.) and concurrently deal with trending sentiment change even if it occurs in a lateral.

Trending sentiment is crucial as you see on the three types of turns and the four types of trends.

The portion of the chart you are correcting is handled by dropping the PP6 and not having the BM, REV as a consequence The event on bar 38 becomes a SET A "c" D to D turn from short to long. The name of the event is Ab, LVBO and from there the chart continues correctly. (Bar 37 is a P2.)

To have a PP3 there cannot be an internal (Wait) that interrupts the 3T1 ofrmation.

An additional supportive comment is that you can see I have enhanced the BM's where possible with rtl's (sub fractal level) and I look for observable BO's of the rtl before the BM occurs. The functional qualifier of the BO of the RTL is that the intersection has to have a TI present or preceding the intersection. Look for BO, T1's and a T1 coincident or prior.

I gave the OP a table to fill in regarding the mix of types of trends, types of turns and the defined relation ship of the n-1 turn prior to the tradeable "c" D to D reversal. This table is there as an aid for differentiatin which type of trend is happening and which ending of that type of trend is possible.

Thanks for your thorough input. As usual you are correct.

 

I'm sorry, it's not my intention to hurt anybody's feeling nor being scarcastic about the comments. It is just boring, because Jack is taking all the fun away of self discovery for the OP...

 

So does anyone want to answer the original question?

 

The long diagonal is the very powerful consideration that takes the "early exit", the "chop" definition, and the "retrace entry edge" well out of play for getting to ecellence in trading.

Long ago "clean page 4" addressed how to deal with the long diagonal as an inderct deductive proof. A lot of What Wasn't That (WWT) was in the space at that time.

Set A the c directly to c turn trend has it filure to break out much before the "long diagonal". Also true for the Setb incomlete trend in the c to a to c sequence of turns.

For trends with the long diagonal we turne to differentiating the nornal trand and the drift trend.

In particular we look at the "b" to next type turn. for the normal trend we see c to a to b to c turns. The next turn after the b is the c turn.

In price terms it is the FTT. All faster fractals are ftt's as well. slower than the tranding fractals are usually not reaching an FTT (1 in 3 or more).

Since I keep data, my first pass was to spin through pages 7 and 7a of every day until my p was less than whatever. for fail safe purposes I made the NOT list as well and tested for mutual exclusivity.

For software design purposes the failsafe look up was on the table.

But I felt a deductive process would be the better alternative.

My conclusion is that you must be still in the trend when the turn status is even and only and only if you are in an odd turn status can you breakout of the "long diagonal" (before you BO of the RTL). This is a consequence of not having a non dom to non dom turn imaginary or other wise. (See set B). That is, an odd turn consequence is to extend the long diagonal and an even turn consequence is to primarly pass time while lessening the slope of the long diagonal.

For sets C and D (normal and drift trends, respectively) I keep my eye on whetner or not I am using Failsafe functions or not. I look particularly at the two (MB ,REV and BO, T1) and keep aware of their "a" or "b" corolation. I also keep alert on 6 or more bars periods between events. Thses spots are around times when range limits (the S and R stuff) is on the minds of edge traders.

In sum, I pair all "c" turns with their priors. If I have a "b" in a setC or D, I do do a look up of the corresponding "c" to that "b". I really like seeing a blank on the look up; It means an "a" turn is imminent. and the "long diagonal is going to be "extented".

 

You had some answers. Do you agree with them? If not, why not?

So now that you got some answers what is the next step? Did you want to present what really happened?

I would have done it differently. Either I would have taken snapshots during the progression of a bar, meaning for example in a 5 minute bar 30 sec. after the open, 100, 200, etc., and at each stage ask those "experts" what they see and why they would either do nothing (wait, hold) or enter long or short. Or I would have taken really three different charts(ituations) and ask the same questions. Then I would present what really happened or the next bars and see again what they "think" they see and would do.

Good luck!

 

I am sure Jack will score A++ in tbe the test.