Fractal Theory: Redux

[Sprout]

I translate "failsafe", in this case, as "the 2 two-bar cases that don't need squishing", as per Jack's post you just quoted above:

Jack Hershey: Two Cases of the market make money and all ther cases are squished to have the two cases that make m0oney. You have all the pieces and as they form you squish them into the "long" or the "short" case.

When a squishable case straddles a "right" boundary you decelerate the money velocity of the RTL by geometrically fanning the RTL. When the price exceds the LTL, you accelerate the boundary by redrawing the new steeper container.​

"Squishing" is still something unclear to me. It could mean assembling all the inside bars with their respective legs, adding like legs to like. It could also mean the process by which a 30min bar is composed of 6 5min bars. It could also mean the "exposed" ends of bars that do not have a common leg. Still working on that one.

In addition perhaps as a reference to volume suppression, the term failsafe as I know it best was frequently used for two End Effects based off geometry to limit losses. At the start of every new trend segment a horizontal bookmark goes out from the opposite extreme of the bar and if there is a close below that line it's an automatic sentiment switch. That End Effect is called BM Reversal.

BO T1 is where the drawn-in right trend line has a close outside of it. This considerably shortens the length of a lot of trend segments with the RDBMS. In the chart you posted, if you do have Ab - Long sentiment on the 1525 bar as indicated, 1530 bar is going to be a BM REV - Short, and then 1535 will be a double BM REV - Long back into a PP4 - Short from the OB. And so on.

But again, my examples aren't significant in themselves. Even if there happens to be an error, there are other charts with the same occurrences that will not have errors. It's simple a by-product of using a rigid mechanical system to classify sentiment.

Not trying to knock the system by any means but for me it's been proven time and again that success with it isnt as simple as just mastering all of the EE's and the syntax; there's an additional step after that, be it more rules, intuition, etc. required to consistently profit.

These days that extra step and how different individuals accomplish it in varied ways is where my interest lies. I've known a few individuals who have developed lasting success with foundational P/V principles but none from pure application of the RDBMS. So if you start to make headway there please keep us posted; you've seemed to make a lot of progress in a short amount of time and I can't imagine it will be too much longer before you start getting into the D of MADA.

Thank you for the clarity on the BO T1 and the BM REV as End Effects. As for your specific example, I see both BM REV, both of which would signal end of segment and start of new trend. PP4 (from my current understanding) can only present within an OB after the requirement of 2 successive P1's. The OB containing a P1 and T1.

Jury's still out on the missing element. After I do 50 logs, there might be a different thing to report. Even though, I came across Spydertrader's Future Journal first, I spend my first year on digging up links and studying that first page. I did what was advocated and started with PVT. I've attempted to trade equites the same as futures. Quickly, I learned about PACE and liquidity and it's relationship to trading. Lot's of other insights and my desire to id turns earlier led me to Jack's RDBMS. From my view, everything interlocks, logically, consistently, profitably but the most important - my state.

The state of my well being includes but is not limited to my physical, emotional, mental and spiritual bodies. The state of my well being does require continued stimuli for growth, the alternative is fossilization. Whenever I experience a block in one area, I shift to another. As a trader, our service is to offer liquidity to others. As a human being, our service is to others and the upliftment of humanity. As a spiritual being, our service is to all beings.

Be Do Have.

Be liquid.


In the meantime, debriefing the Volume Procedure Sequence tool produced this clarity for me.



Now, to understand REV CHRON. Anyone have any thoughts or links on this?

 

[frenchfry]

Rev Chron...

It's a long time ago. If I remember it correctly then it simply means this:

In your log you have the column for P1 - T1 - P2 - T2P - etc.

Let's say for your previous volume bar you logged a T1. The new bar arrives and you have permission to measure. The next column in your log after T1 is P2 so you would like to log a P2 for the new bar but that would be wrong.

First you need to do a test in reverse chronological order and test if the new bar is NOT another T1. Then you test again to see if the new bar is NOT a new P1. Only if you were able to exclude those possibilities then you are allowed to move to the next column and log a P2.

 

[llIHeroic]

That's correct by my knowledge FF. Because of Reverse Chronology the earlier volume events always take precedence. So following your example if we got all the way to a P2, then had a measurable bar with greater volume following after; it wouldn't just be another P2 automatically. It would have to fail to be another P1 first before getting assigned as P2.

Also PP4 is P1 over T1 on an OB, not two P1's. Any OB with a peak on the first volume event triggers an EE. And so because P1 is autoassigned on A band EEs and failsafes and not places on the next measurable bar, essentially an OB that triggers any of those End effects is always going to be a double sentiment change.

 

[tiddlywinks]

PP4 (from my current understanding) can only present within an OB after the requirement of 2 successive P1's. The OB containing a P1 and T1.

I am not aware of 2 successive P1's needed for PP4.

Ripped post from Jack for PP4 (and other OB ee's) explanation attached.


As an ancillary discussion, OB's are a great place to begin study and automation of JHPV imo. Why? Because they are easily discerned. And following the prescription and usage of the attached text, there is clear definition of when OB IS NOT/CAN NOT be anything remotely likened to a turn or sentiment change. Of course, all the usual "difficulties" of JHPV remain, fractal jumping, sequencing, pace, etc, but OB is terrific because it's mere presence gives notice that something involving a turn and/or sentiment IS (or is not) happening right then, without any other knowledge/aspect of JHPV.

 

[baro-san]

"Squishing" is still something unclear to me. It could mean assembling all the inside bars with their respective legs, adding like legs to like. It could also mean the process by which a 30min bar is composed of 6 5min bars. It could also mean the "exposed" ends of bars that do not have a common leg. Still working on that one. ...

Related to that discussion, "squishing" seems to refer to compressing the bars of an internal into a single equivalent bar.

 

[Sprout]

Rev Chron...

It's a long time ago. If I remember it correctly then it simply means this:

In your log you have the column for P1 - T1 - P2 - T2P - etc.

Let's say for your previous volume bar you logged a T1. The new bar arrives and you have permission to measure. The next column in your log after T1 is P2 so you would like to log a P2 for the new bar but that would be wrong.

First you need to do a test in reverse chronological order and test if the new bar is NOT another T1. Then you test again to see if the new bar is NOT a new P1. Only if you were able to exclude those possibilities then you are allowed to move to the next column and log a P2.

Thank you frenchfry !

I am appreciative of the input and need to work through my thinking for it to "click" for me.

In your example, after logging a T1, the next incr Vol peak would be a P2 up to the height of the previous P1. Above this would be a new P1. It being a peak excludes the possibility of it being a trough. Else, it being a trough excludes it being a peak. PRV would have a "moment of certainty" prior to end of bar.

The exception is if price moves opposite the current trend on increasing volume. In this case it would be a new P1 in theory but most likely a BO T1 or a BM REV as per Failsafe.
The other possible movement is price moving opposite the current trend on decreasing volume.

The above cases would show up as OB's, StB, StR.

As per Jokari, we would anticipate change.

There's a place in the Volume Test Procedure where "Is Repeat?" is the first test. Then REV CHRON. From my pov, your description fits into "Is Repeat?" better. However, I've been operating under the HS that "Is Repeat" refers to the size of the volume bar as a repeat of the size of the previous volume bar. It doesn't get labeled as P1, T1 or P2 but REPEAT instead. This is my current level of understanding. If this is incorrect I thank you in advance for offering some detail and/or context so I might arrive at the same conclusion.

If I'm doing a test in reverse chronological order, then it would be, test Bar.0 to Bar.1, Bar.2, Bar.3, etc. In chronological order, then it would be test Bar1 to Bar2, Bar3, etc. Is there a different notation for future bars x bars into the future from the current bar?

 

[Sprout]

That's correct by my knowledge FF. Because of Reverse Chronology the earlier volume events always take precedence. So following your example if we got all the way to a P2, then had a measurable bar with greater volume following after; it wouldn't just be another P2 automatically. It would have to fail to be another P1 first before getting assigned as P2.

Also PP4 is P1 over T1 on an OB, not two P1's. Any OB with a peak on the first volume event triggers an EE. And so because P1 is autoassigned on A band EEs and failsafes and not places on the next measurable bar, essentially an OB that triggers any of those End effects is always going to be a double sentiment change.

This is what I see.
P1 is a new window, independent from the past.
The P1 establishes an upper boundary line. In the same trend segment, above which is a new P1, below which is a P2 (provided the other conditions are true for a P2.)
A new P1 is an acceleration of pace, a steepening of the rtl and increase in bar volatility. It is an increase in conviction. A third P1 is a further acceleration of pace, a steepening of the rtl and increase in bar volatility. At this point we have the first end of the spectrum - PP1. Why did Jack call it PP1? If one sits down and creates a flowchart attempting to quantify volume, how would you go about it? Jack was an engineer. He measured fluid dynamics. How would somebody with that training approach a problem? In a manner and depth that Jack did, it's all logical steps. PP1 is a mirror of PP6.
Which volume formations are mirrors of each other?


True PP4 is P1 AND T1 on the same bar (which presents as an OB). I assert that a prior P1 is a prerequisite. It is what came before the T1 THEN the P1 you are referring to.

What I give as proof is that PP1d, PP1, PP3a, PP3 are possible on the third bar of trend, having 2 previous P1's on the 1st and 2nd bar, a P1 on third bar is a PP1. If the acceleration is short on this third bar then it's a PP1d. If instead of a peak in volume we have a trough, it's a PP3. If it's a trough and price is in a lateral, we have PP3a. The label PP4 would be assigned to the next phenomenon after PP3. It would be a natural transition from PP3 to PP5. We know PP3 as an entry into a lateral from at least two prior P1's. PP5's are either a OB BO increasing volume resuming trend (pt3 of channel) OR fail to BO and a decrease in volume. So my guess is that Jack would have defined PP4 as something between the two. An OB makes sense, but under what context that isn't defined in the spectrum?

Heroic, would you expand on "And so because P1 is autoassigned on A band EEs and failsafes and not places on the next measurable bar, essentially an OB that triggers any of those End effects is always going to be a double sentiment change."

 

[Sprout]

I am not aware of 2 successive P1's needed for PP4.

Ripped post from Jack for PP4 (and other OB ee's) explanation attached.


As an ancillary discussion, OB's are a great place to begin study and automation of JHPV imo. Why? Because they are easily discerned. And following the prescription and usage of the attached text, there is clear definition of when OB IS NOT/CAN NOT be anything remotely likened to a turn or sentiment change. Of course, all the usual "difficulties" of JHPV remain, fractal jumping, sequencing, pace, etc, but OB is terrific because it's mere presence gives notice that something involving a turn and/or sentiment IS (or is not) happening right then, without any other knowledge/aspect of JHPV.

You are correct. It is a result of my working with my flowchart. It could be "Is False." My logic is that for a T1 to exist there had to be a prior P1 in addition to the new P1. The T1 and new P1 on the same bar presenting as an OB.

Thanks for posting that text. I didn't realize there even was a PP4a or PP4b.

Ok, time to work in the new info.

Thank you for these helpful texts you've been posting!

 

[Sprout]

Related to that discussion, "squishing" seems to refer to compressing the bars of an internal into a single equivalent bar.

Ok. Let's say we have a three bar lateral. 1st and 2nd bar are a FTP Both bar Incr Price. 2nd and 3rd bar are Stitch Red. 2nd bar Incr Price, 3rd bar Decr Price. The 2nd and 3rd bar get "squished" into what form? If we add a 4th bar say FBP AND 4th bar is Incr Price, what is the "squished" result?

When I do it, I leave the first bar alone. The 2nd and 3rd bar get squished into a two-legged bar. If I squish the 2nd, 3rd and 4th, I get a third leg on a composite single bar. If this is correct then the 3rd bar of this 4bar lateral is the dominant leg of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bar. Which has me anticipate a return to dominance on the next bar.

These are the thoughts that have me go,...."hmmm"

 

[frenchfry]

Again... everything is too long ago. Still need to refresh my memory.

As a side note I would also suggest what deb_sezwhat suggested: Ignore Spyder.

If you want to learn Spyder's way read Spyder's posts. If you want to learn Jack's way before "Exact Science" read Jack's old posts. If you want to learn his "Exact Science" way then read that thread. If you want to learn his last iteration (JHM 2.0) then only focus on whatever he posted from approx. mid 2012 until he stopped posting. Otherwise things get too confusing. Later you can of course try to combine everything again.

When I tried to decipher Jack's posts from 2012 he suggested a log which I used in this thread: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/putting-the-pieces-together-attention-jhm.247813/page-3

There in his post #40 he tries to tell me how to do the "Volume test procedure" correctly. Those log columns is what I was referring to. Doesn't matter in which volume column you are at a specific moment in time you always go back (rev chron) and do the test again. The result of that rev chron could be a "Repeat" or "NEXT".

...

In your example, after logging a T1, the next incr Vol peak would be a P2 up to the height of the previous P1. Above this would be a new P1. It being a peak excludes the possibility of it being a trough. Else, it being a trough excludes it being a peak. PRV would have a "moment of certainty" prior to end of bar.

Volume above T1 could be a P2 or a new P1 (if you have a T2F?). In addition you will see on the "Volume Bands" diagram that a P2 could be either below the boundaries of P1 or above.

Only if you have a "volume lock-in" you have your "moment of certainty". And I think that is only determined by actual volume and not PRV.

The exception is if price moves opposite the current trend on increasing volume. In this case it would be a new P1 in theory but most likely a BO T1 or a BM REV as per Failsafe.
The other possible movement is price moving opposite the current trend on decreasing volume.

The above cases would show up as OB's, StB, StR.

As per Jokari, we would anticipate change.

Probably. Then you would look up the name of the EE, determine the turn type (a, b or c) and then look in the Modrian table what must come next.

There's a place in the Volume Test Procedure where "Is Repeat?" is the first test. Then REV CHRON. From my pov, your description fits into "Is Repeat?" better. However, I've been operating under the HS that "Is Repeat" refers to the size of the volume bar as a repeat of the size of the previous volume bar. It doesn't get labeled as P1, T1 or P2 but REPEAT instead. This is my current level of understanding. If this is incorrect I thank you in advance for offering some detail and/or context so I might arrive at the same conclusion.

"Rev chron" is simply the process of doing the test. The result is either a "Repeat" or "NEXT".

If I'm doing a test in reverse chronological order, then it would be, test Bar.0 to Bar.1, Bar.2, Bar.3, etc. In chronological order, then it would be test Bar1 to Bar2, Bar3, etc. Is there a different notation for future bars x bars into the future from the current bar?

Sorry, didn't understand why you first do a rev chron and then do a "test in the future".