fortes fortuna juvat

fordewind · May 16, 2017

Sprout said:
His work speaks for itself and deserves the highest respect. Different people need to hear it in different ways. I derived tremendous value from Spydertrader's work. He helped open up Jack's concepts to countless folks including me and was an exceptional example of transference and paying it forward. I became profitable from his approach in teaching Jack's material.

He walked his talk and supported others to do the same.

Cool!Now, try to go live with it and post the results, if i may.

tiddlywinks · May 16, 2017

Sprout said:
From my dataset:
1) Correct.
On the fastest fractal, a pt3 can be bwt the 2nd and third leg of a bar, the VE being within the 3rd leg.
Or more common, the 2nd bar of a two bar combination.
Or on the n+1 bar of a n +1 bar combination, n>=1. This is typical of a lateral movement prior to a BO and VE or FBO and FTT of traverse/channel or BO on one fractal and then FTT on faster fractal.

2) Incorrect. FTT's always occur after a pt 3 either before or after a VE. When Pace accelerates then VE. When Pace de-accelerates then FTT. A VE is not necessary for completion but a FTT by it's nature is a completion. Whether an exhaustion of the current dominant or an interruption by a new opposite dominant.

Of the three turns, two go to Dominant.
C turns - Dom to Dom,
2 and multi bar formations - B2B, R2R, and single bar formations OB (IBGS)
B turns - Non Dom to Dom - 2B, 2R, OB (IBGS)

Sometimes price lifts on low volume but only on a larger (frequently unseen) short channel.

Tiddlywinks, The FTT can occur within a bar perhaps this is what you mean. If you have an example at hand, it would be interesting to see the difference.

What I meant was FTT is not a requirement for SEQUENCE completion. Yes, I agree, FTT is completion. And I will go on to say that 100% of the time when an FTT has been properly identified, there are only 3 possible outcomes, 100% of the time.

Bottomline, FTT is VERY COMMON, but it is NOT REQUIRED, it is not always present during sentiment change, nor is it the only way sentiment change occurs or identified.

I know I have a straight-forward statement from Spyder or Jack somewhere but for now... Pg 119 excerpt from Channels for building wealth.

Sprout · May 16, 2017

tiddlywinks said:
What I meant was FTT is not a requirement for SEQUENCE completion. Yes, I agree, FTT is completion. And I will go on to say that 100% of the time when an FTT has been properly identified, there are only 3 possible outcomes, 100% of the time.

Bottomline, FTT is VERY COMMON, but it is NOT REQUIRED, it is not always present during sentiment change, nor is it the only way sentiment change occurs or identified.

I know I have a straight-forward statement from Spyder or Jack somewhere but for now... Pg 119 excerpt from Channels for building wealth.

Thank you for adding clarity to your previous statement. In those moments that you have identified, a faster fractal is where I interpreted the ftt resides. On the next larger fractal, I've observed the ltl "touch" sentiment shift as you describe. For me, I've seen it in low volume periods and the initial opening volatility on equities, I've just recently been monitoring the Es so cannot speak of that which I have not observed.

In terms of sentiment change other than ftt, pace acceleration/deacceleration, decr vol, and dom wall, what other signals are you referring to?

Agreed, 100%;
Ftt to Ftt
Ftt to Bo
Ftt to fbo

Thanks for serving up your attachments, a couple have filled in some essential gaps for me with Jhm 2.0 !

llIHeroic · May 16, 2017

I forget the exact post but I think these considerations are part of the reason Spyder explicitly said later on that he was trying to move away from the terminology of FTT's. Later on he focused much more exclusively on sequence completion + Signal of Change as an end to trends of his trading fractal.

In fact I think toward the end of his posting he said he no longer considers FBO as an accurate term for anything in his trading or something along those lines; since a lot of FTT's in price occur before sequences are ever complete and don't signal a change in sentiment of the slower fractal. But once all sequences are complete the next FTT that's a Signal of Change is the beginning of an equal trend in the opposite direction.

If someone digs up Breakeven's chart of 10/13/10 - 10/15/10 on TL where Spyder was walking him through the last iteration of his method before he stopped posting by having him annotate a large fractal called a Channel, you can see a lot of these things being discussed. All sequences of the first Down Traverse [made of 3 Tapes] end at 1500 on the 14th and I believe Spyder said or implied that at no point before then could the Traverse fractal complete. All Down FTT's were irrelevant to the Traverse fractal and continuation down was expected because the sequences were not yet complete.

Annotating such precise fractals across multiple days is something I have never seen Jack get into. He was more concerned with what is visible. When Spyder began he was doing things a lot differently than he was at the end. What he once saw as FBO's and reacted to became expected and necessary occurrences in larger sequences.

You can see his gaussians change over time as well. Before he used one line weight and would have B2B's following R2R's at times. Later on he always had a full b2b2r2b followed by a full r2r2b2r of the same line weight and so on. Then after that he started to draw a faster, thin x2x2y2x composing each leg of the medium gaussian. You can see the progression over time if you look at all his writings/charts in a linear fashion.

stepan7 · May 16, 2017

Folks,

What you guys are posting here is cool and all very well. And demonstrate deep understanding of the topic.

I, would be you, would to focus to make as much as possible out of this thing.

Otherwise it can be easily irrelevant theory with freak out annotated charts.

Real knowledge come only while applying it for good with real money.

HTH,

St.

svrz · May 16, 2017

llIHeroic said:
If someone digs up Breakeven's chart of 10/13/10 - 10/15/10 on TL where Spyder was walking him through the last iteration of his method before he stopped posting by having him annotate a large fractal called a Channel, you can see a lot of these things being discussed. All sequences of the first Down Traverse [made of 3 Tapes] end at 1500 on the 14th and I believe Spyder said or implied that at no point before then could the Traverse fractal complete. All Down FTT's were irrelevant to the Traverse fractal and continuation down was expected because the sequences were not yet complete.

svrz · May 16, 2017

stepan7 said:
Folks,

Real knowledge come only while applying it for good with real money.

HTH,

St.

So what are you suggesting?

The original method or JHM 1.0 as you call it, is an attempt at creating a 'standard model' of the market. Many have taken all or parts of it and supplied their own addendum to fill in the gaps.

JHM 2.0 was an attempt by the late Jack Hershey to create a more precise framework. You wanted as many of its details as possible. I think we provided nearly everything that has been written on it.

The closest anyone has come to practicing JHM 2.0 is Foredwin but his version is based on Jack's earlier writings and has added material from other authors.

So in summary, nearly everyone is utilizing these frameworks in a discretionary matter. Hence other than sharing more insight or tips, I don't know if there is much more that we can do. If you think otherwise, then please be specific in your suggestions.

stepan7 · May 16, 2017

svrz said:
Thank you llIHeroic for yet another insightful post.

Rather than just posting the chart, perhaps it is best to have the full context of the conversation at hand.

First, here is the background:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-280.html#post104642

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-280.html#post104643

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-280.html#post104648

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-280.html#post104649

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-285.html#post104764

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-285.html#post104768

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-285.html#post104775

Chart:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-286.html#post104782

Discussion:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-286.html#post104785

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-286.html#post104786

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-286.html#post104792

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-287.html#post104803

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-287.html#post104808

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-288.html#post104852

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-288.html#post104863

Another chart:

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-289.html#post104885

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/fo...price-volume-relationship-289.html#post104900

Thanks svrz.

stepan7 · May 16, 2017

llIHeroic said:
I forget the exact post but I think these considerations are part of the reason Spyder explicitly said later on that he was trying to move away from the terminology of FTT's.

Can you find that "the exact post"?

stepan7 · May 16, 2017

svrz said:
So what are you suggesting?

The original method or JHM 1.0 as you call it, is an attempt at creating a 'standard model' of the market. Many have taken all or parts of it and supplied their own addendum to fill in the gaps.

JHM 2.0 was an attempt by the late Jack Hershey to create a more precise framework. You wanted as many of its details as possible. I think we provided nearly everything that has been written on it.

The closest anyone has come to practicing JHM 2.0 is Foredwin but his version is based on Jack's earlier writings and has added material from other authors.

So in summary, nearly everyone is utilizing these frameworks in a discretionary matter. Hence other than sharing more insight or tips, I don't know if there is much more that we can do. If you think otherwise, then please be specific in your suggestions.

Let's say goal is to automate JHM 2.0 annotation.

The task is divided in 4 steps at least.

1. Info - Easy Part.

With your and others help, we have it here and I can find much more.

2 Algorithm - The Hardest Part.

Definitions and Unambiguous step by step instructions. for each annotation element.

For example:

- P1 - What is it? How to locate it. Where to put it on the chart. Chart example.
- T1 - WTF?
- and soon.

3. Programming - Not easy, but achievable.

4. QA - Quality Assurance - Easy step with help of others.

Check if everything run smoothly and according to the Step 2.

Step 2, as the hardest one, I won't do myself, only with you guys.

I would like you to understand me correctly - I am not a big fun of digging in to the Old Man writing and extract teas of knowledge. Especially if I am not sure what to do with it.

For me Spyder's version was much easier to put in the algo and programm in NT.

fortes fortuna juvat

Attachments