fortes fortuna juvat

[stepan7]

I would define a Formation as small as a two bar comparison and can continue including other bars until a condition no longer exists. ie. a two bar FTP is the similar to a multiple bar FTP.

A Lateral Formation is where the current bar's O, H, L, C are equal to or less than the O, H, L, C of the previous bar.
A Lateral Movement is where the current bar's O and C are equal to or less than the H, L of previous bar.

They are both terminated when there are two sequential closes outside the H or L of the first bar that defines the Lateral. The first bar of the Lateral is the first bar that all other bars are compared to. The first bar of the lateral is not the inside bar.

However, this definition is not consistent with the lateral movement you have defined in this snippet starting at 16:10

View attachment 173458

My working definition would have your 16:10 Lateral Movement defined as a 5 bar lateral initiated by the Sym Pennant. Therefore with your color scheme, it should be blue box not grey.

It's 15:10, Third Bar Low @15:20 breached boundaries.

 

[stepan7]

Hi, sorry for the delay. I'll try to contribute my understanding of End Effects. I apologize if the response is redundant at this point. EE's are from Jack's RDBMS system and they are basically a mechanical way to track sentiment change on the fastest visible fractal; close to the price case container. This P/V stuff has such a varied history that you really need to pick the time period and individual you're learning it from in order to have a modicum of consistency.

History of P/V - Various Evolutions over Time

For example, Spyder during the Hershey Futures Journal did not even really use lateral formations. CCC was mostly what he referred to low-paced sideways movement as. Then in the IR thread here he introduced lateral formation vs. movement. Finally in the TL thread he abolished lateral movement, and differentiated lateral formations into Sym Confirming and Non-Sym Confirming. So it really depends what alteration of this method you want to focus on. If you try to include every single thing both Spyder and Jack taught over the years you're going to over-complicate things and even get conflicting information at points. The basic principles of volume leading price, the gaussian, and the model of a trend are a constant foundation. But the more detailed material isn't always additive; it has been modified in many small ways over time, and eventually Spyder and Jack diverged on a few points.

Jack taught about the gaussian sequence for years along with geometric annotations. Very late in his life he made a pretty drastic shift trying to design a more mechanical volume-based system, perhaps as a last attempt to get this into some format which is easily transferred to prospective students. Rate of successful transference has always been very low across the years. Whether he succeeded is up for debate. I never met or corresponded with any successful students here of the RDBMS system; although Jack did share numerous blotters, charts, and some interviews of a group he taught and worked with daily in his live trading room in Arizona who seemed to be successfully compounding their accounts.

What EE's Are

In a nut-shell EE's are particular sequences of volume events that are supposed to signal a probable ending to a sub-fractal gaussian sequence coming up, and thus a change in price direction. So take PP1; three increasing volume bars with acceleration. On the third bar when you see PRV signaling a PP1, you watch price [and perhaps finer tools], and when it comes off the extreme, intra-bar, you can take profits on the active trade and perhaps reverse. I understand how to annotate a chart with all of the EE's. Being able to time the intra-bar entries properly and understand how to pass on the failed turns was something I never mastered.

Conclusion

I have a lot of information about these varying methods floating around in my head but the breadth of concepts and topics and how they changed over time makes it difficult to present. Hopefully that answers some of your question svrs. I struggle with mental illness which comes and goes, and varies in severity, and unfortunately my mind hasn't been quite all there for some time now. I've had to take a long pause with working on trading this stuff as my performance and mental clarity dropped off very sharply. Still somewhat in tune to the markets from an observational standpoint and willing to try to contribute to the discussion as needed though.

This is cool and all very well.

Do you have any practical algorithms how to code them?

 

[Sprout]

This is what I use

Item               Bars Conditions                 Termination
Sym                ==2  H<H & L>L
Stitch             ==2  H=H & L<L || H>H & L=L
Hitch              ==2  H=H & L=L
FTP/FBP            ==2  H=H & L>L || H<H & L=L
Formation          >=3  2 bars inside first bar     any breach of boundaries
Lateral Formation  >=3  2 bars inside first bar     2 sequential closes breach of boundaries
Lateral Movement   >=3  2 closes inside first bar   2 sequential closes breach of boundaries

I see, by defining a formation as three bars instead of 2 makes the difference. Thanks!

 

[stepan7]

I see, by defining a formation as three bars instead of 2 makes the difference. Thanks!

There are additional condition to create Lateral Movement, but I can't figure out them, this is why my algorithm incomplete.

 

[llIHeroic]

This is cool and all very well.

Do you have any practical algorithms how to code them?

It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Nearly all of the concepts and annotation procedures can be coded and it looks like you've done so. Price cases can be coded. Trend channels can be coded. Every End Effect has an objective definition and can be coded. Volume suppress can be coded. Laterals can be coded. Sym confirming and non-sym confirming can be coded.

Volume sequences can be coded, but the fractal being built by the bar-to-bar containers varies wildly depending on market pace, and I think that's where pure automation breaks down. Sometimes a Traverse can span 10 bars. Sometimes a building block of a tape can span a whole day. This was discussed in the latter end of the TL thread. Also at times there's points where you have to pick a view with multiple technical possibilities and only data after the fact will confirm your view of the fractals.

The RDBMS can get closer to pure automation, but the actual execution still needs a degree of finesse/intuition. If you follow the rules to the letter; i.e. PRV signals End Effect and the sentiment of the active bar changes triggers an entry; you've going to get way too many false starts.

Also there are other strange inconsistencies if you introduce the Modrian Table, sometimes a c to c turn, which is supposed to denote P1 of a new dominant trend, will then have a "non-dom" leg that surpasses the c to c turn in price units; which goes against the traditional geometric rule-set ("The Pattern").

As far as I've ever been able to understand, Jack and Spyder taught a tool-set; a paradigm for viewing the market. Based off set and mechanical principles of course, but actually turning the mechanical annotation procedure into successful executions never seemed to be fully expounded upon and time and again was where everyone seemed to fail. Either there's concepts the public was never able to deduce, or successful trading takes a certain degree of intuition / contextual analysis that can't be fully articulated. I referenced evidence for such a though in my last Fractal Theory post, where Jack told me, "You've just got to know a reversal wasn't possible at that point."

I'm sure there's got to be combinations of automation with pieces of this method that have positive expectancy but it's a realm I don't personally have the skill set to delve into. tiddlywinks seems to have gone further than any have before (that I know of) in translating components of this method to a sustainable system with a some degree of automation.

HTH. There is such a breadth of information and concepts involving the P/V that it's difficult to be concise answering basic questions.

 

[river]

Finally in the TL thread he abolished lateral movement, and differentiated lateral formations into Sym Confirming and Non-Sym Confirming.

llIHeroic,

I thought I was familiar with everything Spyder had written here on ET and over at TL but I don't recall anything discussed about Sym confirming and Non-Sym confirming; I have no idea what that even means. Although I always felt the lateral movement/formation discussions were rather pedantic, perhaps I missed something of great significance. Would you expound on the Sym/Non-Sym confirming differentiation?

Sorry to read of your ongoing struggles with mental illness, that must be very difficult. I wish you well in your struggle.

-river

 

[stepan7]

It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Nearly all of the concepts and annotation procedures can be coded and it looks like you've done so. Price cases can be coded. Trend channels can be coded. Every End Effect has an objective definition and can be coded. Volume suppress can be coded. Laterals can be coded. Sym confirming and non-sym confirming can be coded.

Volume sequences can be coded, but the fractal being built by the bar-to-bar containers varies wildly depending on market pace, and I think that's where pure automation breaks down. Sometimes a Traverse can span 10 bars. Sometimes a building block of a tape can span a whole day. This was discussed in the latter end of the TL thread. Also at times there's points where you have to pick a view with multiple technical possibilities and only data after the fact will confirm your view of the fractals.

The RDBMS can get closer to pure automation, but the actual execution still needs a degree of finesse/intuition. If you follow the rules to the letter; i.e. PRV signals End Effect and the sentiment of the active bar changes triggers an entry; you've going to get way too many false starts.

Also there are other strange inconsistencies if you introduce the Modrian Table, sometimes a c to c turn, which is supposed to denote P1 of a new dominant trend, will then have a "non-dom" leg that surpasses the c to c turn in price units; which goes against the traditional geometric rule-set ("The Pattern").

As far as I've ever been able to understand, Jack and Spyder taught a tool-set; a paradigm for viewing the market. Based off set and mechanical principles of course, but actually turning the mechanical annotation procedure into successful executions never seemed to be fully expounded upon and time and again was where everyone seemed to fail. Either there's concepts the public was never able to deduce, or successful trading takes a certain degree of intuition / contextual analysis that can't be fully articulated. I referenced evidence for such a though in my last Fractal Theory post, where Jack told me, "You've just got to know a reversal wasn't possible at that point."

I'm sure there's got to be combinations of automation with pieces of this method that have positive expectancy but it's a realm I don't personally have the skill set to delve into. tiddlywinks seems to have gone further than any have before (that I know of) in translating components of this method to a sustainable system with a some degree of automation.

HTH. There is such a breadth of information and concepts involving the P/V that it's difficult to be concise answering basic questions.

Basically to summarize your post - you have nothing practical.

 

[Sprout]

Basically to summarize your post - you have nothing practical.

Perhaps,.... and/also super insightful and supportive of "putting the pieces together" for those not as far down the path.

Solid steps and missteps, both are real. Some can make one stronger and others quite wounding. Yet our bodies heal, our minds heal, our spirit can heal. To understand the experiences of others only adds to the expansion of perspective of one's own. Our perspective determines if one's consciousness is clear or obscured.

Like a fractal, every one of those statements is something defined that folks can test for themselves.

The concept behind honne and tatemae, inside face, outside face, private mind, public mind, inner truth, outer truth are all observable and real.

Reality is something we can have facility with; delusions, illusions, protrusions and confusions,... not so much.

However, back on topic:

Volume sequences can be coded, but the fractal being built by the bar-to-bar containers varies wildly depending on market pace, and I think that's where pure automation breaks down.

Would you expand?

 

[stepan7]

Reality is something we can have facility with; delusions, illusions, protrusions and confusions,... not so much.

Though we are all human and willing support each other - "There is no empathy on Wall Street" - traders should firmly engrave it in their brains.

 

[stepan7]

.

Stats says that 95% will not make it.

But here is the trick, little understood - As soon as trader deeply and honestly accept he is the part of the number, money will come in this business.

Understand?