Tiddywinks, do you have a reference link or time stamp for the text attachment in your post? In working through the Modrian table, there is no PP4a or PP4b
Perhaps I have an earlier copy of the modrian table?
Fractal Theory: Redux
- Thread starter llIHeroic
- Start date
Tiddywinks, do you have a reference link or time stamp for the text attachment in your post? In working through the Modrian table, there is no PP4a or PP4b
Perhaps I have an earlier copy of the modrian table?
My direct answer is no I don't. The "butt" thread is my first thought, but I don't know.
More importantly young Sprout, PP4/a/b is fully described in the text!! And MOST importantly, PPn/a/b/I/II/whatever is not some sort of grail. With all the information you possess, it will not make one bit of difference to your trading. Get your head out of creation of do or die rules and learn to use information for advantage/edge. PPnx is not going to make you a consistently profitable trader using JHPV of any version.
I appreciate the direct response.
Your post about discerning OB's is a great idea.
Yes, it's true, I have been collecting information. My primary goal is feeling greater confidence, support and comfort as I scale up my trading. A prerequisite is achieving greater clarity and understanding in getting to the next level with this material. An essential aspect is further differentiating my mind and committing these concepts into LTM.
Pencil and paper is old school programming. The natural extension is hard-coding to a specific platform.
Doing hand written tasks does complete a nlp loop within the mind. This in turn creates new neuro-connections. Neuroplasticity is the keyword.
The following link contains Jack's flowcharts which the above diagrams are based upon. There's 2/3rd's left to go in that Journal so lot's of insight to come !
The above exercise for me differentiated the possibility of sentiment change through nD to nD movement. It's the necessary fourth element that completes the logic pattern of the Johari window.
I am getting my butt handed to me on a daily basis!
I could be mistaken or have false assumptions. That's the motivation around my thoroughness, to find out for myself with my own thinking how much of what Jack said was true. So far, in reading the volume of his writings, I haven't found one thing not true when exposed to a larger context than what I had my awareness upon. There are typos, mistakes, omissions and errors that can easily be sussed out if and only if one takes the path of purposeful learning and comparing and contrasting multiple posts.
I seek answers to questions vs solutions to problems.
All in all, the market is my teacher. An amazing zen teacher willing to smack me on the head and pocket whenever I'm not in the present moment.
Last edited:
svrz, thank you for this suggestion. Currently I'm on a mac using Tradingview which is browser based. It does have it's limitations. The idea of going back to a windows environment for NT or TN is not exciting at all. Using Parallels has been a work around when playing with a demo of NT but my laptop gets hot processing like that. I like quiet not HD's spinning.
You are absolutely right about having access to a standard price/volume chart. In addition, I see the necessity to create additional displays of visual data with a JHM lens to automate aspects of the RDBMS.
The idea behind implementation with Python is the possibility to access the Machine Learning modules. Also the idea of learning Python from scratch seems more approachable vs C#.
All that said, having access to a robust support community would be the deciding factor or finding a top-notch programmer.
Friday's chart with Log. This is my first attempt at logging RDBMS.
Some questions that came up during the exercise.
When are where are BM's placed?
Are the logging of turns filtered in any way?
How are Retro's logged correctly?
How are OB's logged correctly?
Retro's are a bit tricky in that one doesn't start the bar count at Lat1 until Lat4, which seems to be a bit late in catching high VE's. The procedure is still unclear for me.
The OB's are tricky in that during formation they could be opposite of my assumption of T's before P's or it's opposite.
Some questions that came up during the exercise.
When are where are BM's placed?
Are the logging of turns filtered in any way?
How are Retro's logged correctly?
How are OB's logged correctly?
Retro's are a bit tricky in that one doesn't start the bar count at Lat1 until Lat4, which seems to be a bit late in catching high VE's. The procedure is still unclear for me.
The OB's are tricky in that during formation they could be opposite of my assumption of T's before P's or it's opposite.
Friday's Chart with Log. Five days of logging accomplished.
When and where are BM's placed?
BM's are placed when an EE has presented.
The BM's are critical in staying on the right side of the market. As soon as it's perceived that one is on the wrong side;
1) either one missed an EE or
2) the retro process was not performed to catch a BO of a lateral or
3) BO of the BM/rtl. BM includes annotating the rtl as well.
Are the logging of turns filtered in any way?
This is dependent on volume. Turns can be logged bar by bar if that frequent. In Jack's writings, afaik, turns are logged at EE. Trends do not change until a C turn is present. What creates confusion is the overlapping of trends as the Dominant shifts. The first shift can be a non-Dominant to non-Dominant. The one's that are easiest to discern are the shifting of Dominants.
How are Retro's logged correctly?
When bar 4 occurs during a lateral, Retro process is invoked. No more waits as long as the lateral persists. However, I'm still uncertain if that process changes bar 2 of the lateral from wait to measurable. This becomes difficult when multiple laterals overlap with no discernible BO of the longest lateral.
How are OB's logged correctly?
Still working on this one.
The OB's are tricky in that during formation they could be opposite of my assumption of T's before P's or it's opposite. Also, OB's do signal change, however that change sometimes can last only a single bar.
These are my working definitions after 5 days of logging with Jack's RDBMS.
It's mentally intensive,... and truly a Paradigm that exists outside of CW.
My current operating principle is that the combination of annotating, logging and debriefing is self-correcting.
Although I'm only 1/4 of the way of 20 days to expert, the view from where I stand is breathtaking.
I'm in awe.
Jack's mental capacity to reason through the "Market System of Operation" is a testament to his teachings.
He constantly evolved.
My current thoughts are that coding this would miss the whole point of building the mind.
When and where are BM's placed?
BM's are placed when an EE has presented.
The BM's are critical in staying on the right side of the market. As soon as it's perceived that one is on the wrong side;
1) either one missed an EE or
2) the retro process was not performed to catch a BO of a lateral or
3) BO of the BM/rtl. BM includes annotating the rtl as well.
Are the logging of turns filtered in any way?
This is dependent on volume. Turns can be logged bar by bar if that frequent. In Jack's writings, afaik, turns are logged at EE. Trends do not change until a C turn is present. What creates confusion is the overlapping of trends as the Dominant shifts. The first shift can be a non-Dominant to non-Dominant. The one's that are easiest to discern are the shifting of Dominants.
How are Retro's logged correctly?
When bar 4 occurs during a lateral, Retro process is invoked. No more waits as long as the lateral persists. However, I'm still uncertain if that process changes bar 2 of the lateral from wait to measurable. This becomes difficult when multiple laterals overlap with no discernible BO of the longest lateral.
How are OB's logged correctly?
Still working on this one.
The OB's are tricky in that during formation they could be opposite of my assumption of T's before P's or it's opposite. Also, OB's do signal change, however that change sometimes can last only a single bar.
These are my working definitions after 5 days of logging with Jack's RDBMS.
It's mentally intensive,... and truly a Paradigm that exists outside of CW.
My current operating principle is that the combination of annotating, logging and debriefing is self-correcting.
Although I'm only 1/4 of the way of 20 days to expert, the view from where I stand is breathtaking.
I'm in awe.
Jack's mental capacity to reason through the "Market System of Operation" is a testament to his teachings.
He constantly evolved.
My current thoughts are that coding this would miss the whole point of building the mind.
Last edited:
Friday's chart with log. Ten days of logging accomplished. The old paradigm is giving way to the new - half empty half full.
How are Retro's logged correctly?
When bar 4 occurs during a lateral, Retro process is invoked. No more waits as long as the lateral persists. However, I'm still uncertain if that process changes bar 2 of the lateral from wait to measurable. This becomes difficult when multiple laterals overlap with no discernible BO of the longest lateral.
Lat2 does change from wait to measurable. This has the effect of transposing peaks and troughs to catch up with the advance of trend. Logging sub-laterals is important in that a translation can occur with the whole lateral. Catching the BO with the correct ID supports the correct identification of trend and thus the resulting EE for change. When not logged correctly, there's usually a bar or two offset that supports early exits and not capturing the market's full offer. This has a cascading effect where one is then playing catchup until there's a clear C turn into new dominant direction.
Squishing within a lateral for some reason is still perplexing me.
OB's
This week's logging revealed that some OB's are turns others are not.
I haven't even touched the Modrian table yet. I'm just relying on Failsafes. My working HS is that at every EE just reverse. Some days this works out superb, others not so much. Mistakes in IDing EE's are pretty evident. When I'm catching all the EE's, logging and annotating goes smoothly and the water is pumping. However, coming upon a confusing sequence or if I get lost in the sequence, the water pump stops working and an offset results. Failsafes come to the rescue!
Thursday 6-22 was like that. Most of the day was IDing BO,T1's of the rtl for change and BM-Rev of unfinished trends.
I do miss drawing channels, pt1,2,3,ve,ftt's though. Jack's RDBMS method is way more accurate when it's working. Correction, when I am working it correctly.
How are Retro's logged correctly?
When bar 4 occurs during a lateral, Retro process is invoked. No more waits as long as the lateral persists. However, I'm still uncertain if that process changes bar 2 of the lateral from wait to measurable. This becomes difficult when multiple laterals overlap with no discernible BO of the longest lateral.
Lat2 does change from wait to measurable. This has the effect of transposing peaks and troughs to catch up with the advance of trend. Logging sub-laterals is important in that a translation can occur with the whole lateral. Catching the BO with the correct ID supports the correct identification of trend and thus the resulting EE for change. When not logged correctly, there's usually a bar or two offset that supports early exits and not capturing the market's full offer. This has a cascading effect where one is then playing catchup until there's a clear C turn into new dominant direction.
Squishing within a lateral for some reason is still perplexing me.
OB's
This week's logging revealed that some OB's are turns others are not.
I haven't even touched the Modrian table yet. I'm just relying on Failsafes. My working HS is that at every EE just reverse. Some days this works out superb, others not so much. Mistakes in IDing EE's are pretty evident. When I'm catching all the EE's, logging and annotating goes smoothly and the water is pumping. However, coming upon a confusing sequence or if I get lost in the sequence, the water pump stops working and an offset results. Failsafes come to the rescue!
Thursday 6-22 was like that. Most of the day was IDing BO,T1's of the rtl for change and BM-Rev of unfinished trends.
I do miss drawing channels, pt1,2,3,ve,ftt's though. Jack's RDBMS method is way more accurate when it's working. Correction, when I am working it correctly.
Friday's chart with log - 3/4 accomplished, home stretch with this activity.
Logging is happening faster, although there are the spots that required a re-thinking to progress the trend resulting in getting behind the Right Hard Edge. Annotating the chart is easy now in the realtime. it's not as easy to jump ahead and skim through the log as with prior earlier versions of SCT. The filling out of the log is a requirement bar-by-bar. It's design is as a checklist in sweeping through a full and complete dataset. There is no stepping around this. There is no better way, no short-cut. All elements are essential and complete when taken as a set.
Definitely the hardest drill Jack has put out there AND requires awareness of all his prior work. There was a reason he started with PVT.
For me it requires a bunch of sleep. Power napping when stuck has allowing fresh eyes to see through a problem and utilize the unconscious process that Jack advocated for accelerated purposeful learning.
Maybe the above is not true, but from what I've found when coming across a confusing OOE, it's my unconscious offering up something that Jack laid out way ahead with his prior work. The clarity returns and the water pump starts working again.
In retrospect, the turning point I got with this method happened when I started to follow directions. The hb pencil, ruby red eraser, 3-ring binders and dog-earring thread print-outs. Writing and marking up the printed threads created a different result than just bookmarking threads on my laptop.
It allowed for the moment's of synchronicity. Whenever I was stuck, I just reached for a random binder and most times, the resulting opening page would provide insight into the next step. Each step revealed the next, but for me it required an element of trust for the different puzzles to unlock. Re-reading his writings revealed new layers of understanding with each pass.
This method is impossible to reverse-engineer.
As for backtesting, the programming would be more daunting than just learning the method manually.
After that, it starts to look irrelevant. The backtesting folks aren't even on the same playing field. I know this words would seem confusing, contradictory or untrue for someone throughly grounded in the paradigm of backtesting.
Learning the VTP or Backtesting?
No comparison,... not.... even... close.
The method is encapsulated in pure positive energy, there's no way to access it from fear, doubt or anxiety.
Cheers!
btw, I'm super appreciative of the suggestions for having attention on the carryover. It's more applicable than I imagined and starts the day correctly in the OOE.
Logging is happening faster, although there are the spots that required a re-thinking to progress the trend resulting in getting behind the Right Hard Edge. Annotating the chart is easy now in the realtime. it's not as easy to jump ahead and skim through the log as with prior earlier versions of SCT. The filling out of the log is a requirement bar-by-bar. It's design is as a checklist in sweeping through a full and complete dataset. There is no stepping around this. There is no better way, no short-cut. All elements are essential and complete when taken as a set.
Definitely the hardest drill Jack has put out there AND requires awareness of all his prior work. There was a reason he started with PVT.
For me it requires a bunch of sleep. Power napping when stuck has allowing fresh eyes to see through a problem and utilize the unconscious process that Jack advocated for accelerated purposeful learning.
Maybe the above is not true, but from what I've found when coming across a confusing OOE, it's my unconscious offering up something that Jack laid out way ahead with his prior work. The clarity returns and the water pump starts working again.
In retrospect, the turning point I got with this method happened when I started to follow directions. The hb pencil, ruby red eraser, 3-ring binders and dog-earring thread print-outs. Writing and marking up the printed threads created a different result than just bookmarking threads on my laptop.
It allowed for the moment's of synchronicity. Whenever I was stuck, I just reached for a random binder and most times, the resulting opening page would provide insight into the next step. Each step revealed the next, but for me it required an element of trust for the different puzzles to unlock. Re-reading his writings revealed new layers of understanding with each pass.
This method is impossible to reverse-engineer.
As for backtesting, the programming would be more daunting than just learning the method manually.
After that, it starts to look irrelevant. The backtesting folks aren't even on the same playing field. I know this words would seem confusing, contradictory or untrue for someone throughly grounded in the paradigm of backtesting.
Learning the VTP or Backtesting?
No comparison,... not.... even... close.
The method is encapsulated in pure positive energy, there's no way to access it from fear, doubt or anxiety.
Cheers!
btw, I'm super appreciative of the suggestions for having attention on the carryover. It's more applicable than I imagined and starts the day correctly in the OOE.
Last edited:
So what's your PFC [pre-flight checklist] for tomorrow? Pay particular attention to the carry over section.