Fractal Theory I

[midtown]

At some point you need data of a higher granularity in order to more accurately telegraph the faster fractals exact FTT's with greater accuracy. In the past many tools such as 2m YM, STR-SQU, tick charts, etc. were used for this purpose. You won't always be able to pinpoint a BBT's FTT with 100% accuracy on a 5m chart. Sometimes they give us more than the minimum required to construct them; and there's a procedure for handling those cases just as there is with everything else. Maybe this is the problem you're beginning to encounter as your annotations become more accurate. Tried to address some of your questions on the image.

Thank you both. So if I understand correctly, bar 15 is the end of down sequence as xioxxio indicated with his gaussians and trend lines. Although my FTT's were only intended to apply to the BBT1 (since no BBT2 had yet developed), the 5m chart may lack the granularity necessary to identify an FTT of a BBT with certainty. To do so might be possible with the 2m chart, (assuming I could analyze quickly enough).

 

[xioxxio]

Thank you both. So if I understand correctly, bar 15 is the end of down sequence as xioxxio indicated with his gaussians and trend lines. Although my FTT's were only intended to apply to the BBT1 (since no BBT2 had yet developed), the 5m chart may lack the granularity necessary to identify an FTT of a BBT with certainty. To do so might be possible with the 2m chart, (assuming I could analyze quickly enough).

I trade at a faster fractal, you have 3 bbts on that chart. Your second bbt ends on bar 15 since the lateral exited on the opposite side. I am not sure how you define a bbt. You have 3 equal weight containers to bar 35. In real-time at bar 27 you did not have permission to look for an FTT.

 

[midtown]

I do see the 3 BBT's, but I didn't see the container from 5 to 15 as equal weight to the container from 66 to 15. Does that mean that the FC from 5-9 = the FC from 10-12 = the FC from 12-15, (in addition to being equal to complexity of 66 -15)? I saw the 2nd BBT as unequal so that BBT 1 continued rather than advancing to a tape. So am I incorrect in how I weight the containers?

 

[llIHeroic]

midtown, you do not have three equal containers on that chart. It's likely that xioxxio has an imperfect understanding of either laterals or extended sequences if he is seeing three equal containers there.

It's great if his method and understanding works for him; more power to anyone who refines things down to a system that yields positive results, the rest is gravy. I'm glad that he is participating in dialogue and helping others out.

However, I don't want you to think you were incorrect when your original annotations were actually correct in that aspect of not having three equal containers yet.

 

[xioxxio]

I am looking at this in isolation not what come before or after. A lateral takes you from pt2 to pt3.

I dont have a system I trade this according to context. The lateral rule is not set in stone. Sometimes laterals are not what they seem to be.

Context, context, context, cannot stress that enough

midtown, you really need to tidy up your annotations.


PS- the whole goal of this method is to become a SCT. To sit through non-dom movements where you give back profits was never part of the game plan. Strive to be on the RIGHT side of the market all the time.

 

[xioxxio]

I just thought of something, according to your analysis the two shaded containers below cannot be equal. Under mine they are equal.

Food for thought.

 

[llIHeroic]

Definitely; they aren't equal to each other. The blue box contains a full gaussian sequence in and of itself; and the purple does not. This alone disqualifies them from equality.

 

[xioxxio]

Definitely; they aren't equal to each other. The blue box contains a full gaussian sequence in and of itself; and the purple does not. This alone disqualifies them from equality.

Thanks for that, that is where we differ.

 

[llIHeroic]

This discussion brings up a good opportunity to expand upon something out for anyone following along and trying to advance their understanding of this method.

Thinking that those two containers are equal is a symptom of one of the largest problems I've found with individuals trying to learn this method, which is not fully comprehending that volume is the independent variable of the market; price is the dependent variable.

If you were looking only at the volume pane; there would be absolutely no way you would ever consider the two being equal. However, if you're fundamentally trying to make a geometric model of a trend channel in the price pane with a handful of rules relating to volume superimposed over it; you can probably develop a practice that is successful and superior to most, and more power to you, but any chance of consistent fractal integrity is going to go out the window.

This is a science, not an art. There is no "View A" and "View B" being different yet equally valid. There is the right view and the wrong view. Both midtown's chart and the et3 chart are fantastic examples that can be used to study extended volume sequences of a single fractal container. Containers have a minimum set of requirements for the fractal they're on, but until we get two equal Dom and Non-Dom containers; we can not move up to the slower fractal yet.

 

[xioxxio]

This discussion brings up a good opportunity to expand upon something out for anyone following along and trying to advance their understanding of this method.

Heroic what you are doing is admirable by helping people with "this method" with "The Hero Method" . For the record what you are explaining is NOT Jack's or Spyder's teachings; You have picked up a derivative of the method.


tiddlywinks pointed out the above at the start of this thread.


There is nothing wrong with making money using pieces of the teachings.


Good luck, I wish you well