I am getting my butt handed to me on a daily basis!
- Thread starter jeredlbb
- Start date
Price gives permission bar by bar,
lock-in on a bar allows the test procedure to commence on the indepenedent variable (volume).
Price cases define the permission granting cases.
we all see the translation facet most easily.
An odd harmonic example is a neat one: the doji ending a profit taking segment with PRV HVBO.
At the other pole are the lats within lats within lats, etc.... I have even set up color schemes for these things. BUT.
Lats are handled for one purpose: keeping on the correct side of the market. Laterals take three bars to define. During those times no money (relatively speakiing in non CW terms) is there to be made.
If a lat just comes and goes, there remain two unnamed bars in the independent variable (volume). After the third bar completes, our work resumes because we MUST "retro" the two unamed bars as well as the fourth bar should no BO occur.
This we do. And all bars in longer laterals than 4 bars are handled bar-by-bar using the testprocedure technique and having the failsafe in place.
It is not possible to consider not keeping up with the market any longer than absolutely necessary. A lateral has its rightful space in the sun but it does not have special needs to be satisfied.
In another thread the "quality" of markets is being dicussed. any trading "system" has to be on the ball regardless of the percieved "quality" of the market.
Our team is stepping up five fold in market participation. I know this is irregular relative to the usual progression. Its just that I am not a chicken feed trader and neither is anyone on the team. I notice your were showing 54K there but you only had 4 contracts on the ramp. The way to approach making the use of knowledge and skills is to use capital to make money.
I have for several years wanted to deal with 10 to 12 leading indicators of price. So far I have passed on this facet of carving turns.
I do what I can to keep a person growing in his knowledge and skills. Putting up another TF and using channnels may seem like changing a methodology. Perhaps it is just adding a context for the comfort of the potential trader who has a wiff of CW emotions that are readable. I would expect he would want this unnecessary emotional state back off the table.
scale changes are on the table to deal with the precision of differentiating a close on bid going to an open on ask and vice versa. we are degapping bars here as it turns out. So I did suggest a one point scale to make degapping clearer. The issue of mental calibration is very important. Maybe the shift to one point is also able to retain a calibration after a while. I think it will.
I still believe changing pace is impotant. But we have been omitting the PACE rainbow for a while. we do see that the open, pm BO and midday do help as defined periods with this ommission.
Probably in the next two weekly reports (week 9 and 10) the outcomes of these tweaks will be apparent.
that is correct.
I also note that the BO T1 is also found on the outside bar as the first(upper) row of the OB. When I look it up I see that BM to BO is NOT in the Set A. Since it is not, I do not have a c turn on the EE that happened. I assign an a turn to the upper row.
Now I finish dealing with the lower row.
But first, I assign a P1 on the upper row becuse having a BO, T1 calls for a P1 assignment on the EE row.
thus the upper row has an EE (and its buddy the a turn) and an assigned P1. The lower row gets a "NEXT assignment as part of handling the OB.
I check the Modrian table Set B for an n-1, BO, T1 and an n, PP4. No go; thus, I assign an b turn on the bar also.
good work.
We are stepping up to the top quality of monitoring and analysis on a bar by bar basis.
Quote from frenchfry:
What escaped you is that I gave you JACK'S version. In this thread I don't care about any other version. I had enough bullshitters warning me not to waste my time wih Jack, that his method doesn't work and that it is gibberish/rubbish. I don't care, I form my own oppinion.
As you found one of his posts which you didn't understand I gave you a simpler version which he posted and which you read (hopefully) but didn't rember anymore.
But I understand why you need Jack to give you another version of his previous reply(s) (I do the same) and will in the future not post his previous replys(s) when you have another questions.
thanks for helping me out.
a lot of others thank you as well.
my view is that multiple replies ofthen show nice variations in emphasis. All of us are peers by virtue of our different life experiences.
Each contribution to the learning process has a value of some sort.
The contrast of 777's bullshit to the comments of my EMDR psychologist (175/hour) who is supporting nailing the intrusive thoughts caused by my failure to help an accident victim who couldn't be helped is super. I get to have another laugh.
I ventured across three lanes of heavy traffic to respond to a high speed accident victim where it was later determined she had four times the alcohol limit at 8:30 in the morning and the accident could have been prevented by the other driver behaving correctly. 777 is a real piece of work for us to laugh about.
A question about PP1... theoretically it is clearly defined:
3 P1's with acceleration. PLUS an ADDITIONAL requirement (see formula on PP sheet or compare with the formula you gave to Surf).
Your software is automatically assigning a "P" in the volume pane where BOTH requirements are true. But I see that you assign PP1 less strict. You assign it to 3 P1's with acceleration but you ignore the additional requirement (often). I might be missing something again.
3 P1's with acceleration. PLUS an ADDITIONAL requirement (see formula on PP sheet or compare with the formula you gave to Surf).
Your software is automatically assigning a "P" in the volume pane where BOTH requirements are true. But I see that you assign PP1 less strict. You assign it to 3 P1's with acceleration but you ignore the additional requirement (often). I might be missing something again.
Thanks for your input.
I've done an interview process at our trading room. I spent 4 to 6 hours taking notes.
I'm including this thread's posts as a supplement to the interviews.
Over the last five days I have been spreading things out in two dimensions to gain a closer look at the transfer process. My goal is to get down to the tick level in every dimension of the approach.
To spread things out, I made four skill levels* starting at where the whole system is in hand. The other dimension I added is the various roles the trader combines to actively trade in real time. The three roles are: status/context; platform tader; and carver.
I looked over the PP1 on definition tables at a couple of points in time. I was looking for the transition you mention. I didn't find it as yet.
PP1 is a momentum exhaustion sentiment turn. CW may use it as an edge; I took he time to review a few CW type traders and PA traders who percieve momentum exhaustion as an observable characterisitc in price. I also checked out the odd harmonic phenomena that is embodied in sone trend series.
Re: surf. All I did there was make sure his quant and the assistant and all the pro's surf said his sit as the feet of would not get confused. I did want there to be a possibility that surf's accounts would ever be at risk. So I just picked a part of the momentum exhaustion that could never cause a lossall in the simple context of only one kind of volume bar edfinition. As it turned out surf and his group chose to not be making money several times a day for brief periods. Coming out of a darkened cave where no light was possible in the cave makes it tough to even see any shadows. I felt the simplest of cracks could let in some light and enlightenment stilll might have been possible.The cell in the Johari window designated as "not knowing what you do not know" is a tough box to induce anyone to look at.
In your case, just enjoy doing the whole PP1 from beginning to end. for surf's case I just aded a logic based failsafe and expressed it in beginner coding general maths.
In the final and very extensive write up I am doing, several pages and several illustrations deal with all the forms of momentum exhaustion. In thinking about it all; I probably should tie all the facets of our apporach to the glossary of CW. This effort could make it possible for a wider band of traders to adopt pieces of the approach and put them into the "edges" or "plans", etc..
*
I Real Time
II Technical Real time
III Facilitated Real Time
IV Anticipatory Real Time.
Best thing to do is make up a list. And each item can be addressed rapidly.
These days are rare ones for making money.
The basic opportunity hinges on the topic called "unknowns" in our economy.
We all saw the efect of the WSJ/CNBC polling.
Also the deadlines being set and the plans being offered and rejected.
The financial industry is very swift in its "Wind in the willows" type behavior.
Monday was a day where entry on bar 1 and exit on bar 77 made anyone who uses 20 points as equal to margin a 100% profit segment for the day.
24 bar from open today was 75% of doubling.
sometimes I do not appear at the trading room and after close we reiew the work of the day. we are down to 2 or three mistakes a day. Last evening there were just 2 and they had no consequences and the approach is self correcting.
I would say anythime you have the emotiion set of CW in the market, then write out what you feel it is that is telliing you "you do NOT know you know". the main symptom of CW type trading is the three emotions of fear, anxiety and anger. They are well founded when a person bets and hopes with a target and stops.
In the last three years, there has been an enphasis on having a plan as a phrase that could mean something. I beleive the expression is the most recent replacement for not knowing the "system of operation of the markets".