Fractal Theory I

[llIHeroic]

As I stated before, your presumption is incorrect. Jack and Spyder understood and explained fractal integrity quite thoroughly through the years, both in the forums at certain points when their audiences understood enough of the fundamentals to be able to have a discussion about the particulars, and more extensively in private dialogues as well.

I've invented and/or added nothing to what they practiced and spoke about; I've just stated it a lot more explicitly than they usually did on public forums. I'm flattered that you think I warrant any credit for what I've presented here though. I don't mind if you disagree with me; but I do want to state for anyone trying to learn that when people think this material is peripheral or derivative of Jack's initial discovery of market fractals; it's merely an evidence that they don't fully understand what has been being presented for the past 20 years.

You're welcome to contribute to the discussion; but please find somewhere else to challenge the authenticity of the premises I've presented if you would like to continue to do so. I didn't create this thread to prove or defend that this material is the same taught by Jack and Spyder; I created it to provide some assistance for anyone interested in learning to improve their understanding of Fractal Theory, which midtown is currently trying to do. Thanks.

 

[midtown]

Most times, fractal theory explains the geometry in ways that to me feels logical and certain. However, the period I have outlined in the attached snippet has me confused. It seems the market was simultaneously building an up tape from bar 76 and a down tape from bar 1.

 

[plantrader]

Most times, fractal theory explains the geometry in ways that to me feels logical and certain. However, the period I have outlined in the attached snippet has me confused. It seems the market was simultaneously building an up tape from bar 76 and a down tape from bar 1.

As far as general feedback, in real time it's not possible to have clarity sometimes. This method, nor any method, covers all bases in real-time. That's impossible. Some don't like to admit that, but it's the reality. A fair amount of the time, the clarity someone presents is due to EOD hindsight analysis and/or retrofitting. That's one of the realities with this method, and it can at least help with decisions the next day (even if the current day was very confusing in real-time & presented multiple options for "where we are right now").

 

[llIHeroic]

Most times, fractal theory explains the geometry in ways that to me feels logical and certain. However, the period I have outlined in the attached snippet has me confused. It seems the market was simultaneously building an up tape from bar 76 and a down tape from bar 1.

Those couple of days have some excellent content to study; I'm not surprised that you have a few fuzzy patches around that area. We get some really good examples of the fact that [exempting Pace Accel] we need three equal sub-fractal trends in order to build the slower fractal.

It's very important to keep yourself honest instead of just trying to fit your mental model of a trend over a period of market data as long as it looks "good enough" or consistency will continue to remain elusive as we see with a few individuals who may be falling into this trap.

Try to re-annotate your charts with the following and see if you can't work the rest of the pieces out:

7/22/15 : 10:25 P1 of Down Tape
7/22/15 : 12:45 P2 of Down Tape

7/23/15 : 10:45 P1 of Down Tape
7/23/15 : 15:15 P2 of Down Tape

 

[midtown]

Thanks, plantrader. Without question clarity will often elude me. There is some comfort in simply accepting that reality. I continue to believe, though, that there is science to this and that there is much more that I need to understand.

 

[midtown]

Those couple of days have some excellent content to study; I'm not surprised that you have a few fuzzy patches around that area. We get some really good examples of the fact that [exempting Pace Accel] we need three equal sub-fractal trends in order to build the slower fractal.

It's very important to keep yourself honest instead of just trying to fit your mental model of a trend over a period of market data as long as it looks "good enough" or consistency will continue to remain elusive as we see with a few individuals who may be falling into this trap.

Try to re-annotate your charts with the following and see if you can't work the rest of the pieces out:

7/22/15 : 10:25 P1 of Down Tape
7/22/15 : 12:45 P2 of Down Tape

7/23/15 : 10:45 P1 of Down Tape
7/23/15 : 15:15 P2 of Down Tape

Thank you. That is very helpful. With that information, the solution became immediately obvious. My underlying problem has been that I lack a working procedure for determining equality of complexity and frequently see equality where it doesn't exist. I recognize that is a problem and will continue to compare and differentiate using the examples I know to be correct.

 

[midtown]

Here is my most recent attempt to follow what I perceive as an extended tape with several BO/FBO's. Is anyone else trying to apply equal weight measurements to their charting? The busy gaussians are part of trying to keep track of the sequences at various levels. As far as determining exhaustion of the down tape, if it has arrived, I sure don’t see it. Please feel free to comment.

 

[baro-san]

Here is my most recent attempt to follow what I perceive as an extended tape with several BO/FBO's. Is anyone else trying to apply equal weight measurements to their charting? The busy gaussians are part of trying to keep track of the sequences at various levels. As far as determining exhaustion of the down tape, if it has arrived, I sure don’t see it. Please feel free to comment.

I see the "down exhaustion arriving" on the 14:55 bar.

 

[wilddog]

I see the "down exhaustion arriving" on the 14:55 bar.

View attachment 155880

I agree, 14:55 ends the down move. midtown, the devil is in the details. A suggestion, why not post more recent charts since they are more topical.

 

[midtown]

Thanks, baro-san and wilddog. My reasoning was that from P3 of the tape, all we needed was to complete a BBT3 in order to complete the tape. But the BBT3 also needed 3 equal and opposite parts. Because I failed to extend the lateral, I showed a full volume cycle in the 1st part where it didn't exist. Your version makes more sense. The devil was in the details. The volatility of bar 65 does indeed fail to equal or exceed all dominant bars in the tape. I’ll make future posts more current.