Iterative Refinement

Quote from Ezzy:

Example attached with both trendlines.

And who came up with this example originally?

I think a misinterpretation of what Jack wrote has crept in. As I read it, he says start over after outside bars.
 
Quote from PointOne:

And who came up with this example originally?

I think a misinterpretation of what Jack wrote has crept in. As I read it, he says start over after outside bars.

This is Spyder's convention - which indeed may well be different to Jack's.
 
To the relief of all and the joy of many, some time ago I shifted my incoherent ramblings to another thread, “Adventures …”. The recent discussion about OB’s shows how long time practitioners of the method can disagree about the meaning of something they have read and I feel compelled to reappear, if only briefly. The Jews have a fine tradition of discussing the true meaning of the Torah which manifests itself in the Talmud and Tosafat. In that spirit, another thought on the OB.

The OB resets things that have past before. At times it is a dramatic reset - a reversal of trend whether it be a tape, a traverse or a channel trend. On occasion it introduces a formation. Other times it is even less eye-catching and may simply expand the boundaries of, for example, a tape, with preservation of the ongoing trend. When it does something like the latter, the reset of the boundaries of the tape often produces one of the many types of fftraverses. On more than one occasion I have seen an OB wipe out what appeared to be a developing completion.

With respect to drawing “to” or “from” an OB, if you look closely at Spyder’s 2-3-09 chart, it is my opinion that there is no disconnect whatsoever between his renderings and those put forth by Jack (see nkhoi’s post above). We all appreciate that there is a huge contextual component with respect to correctly interpreting what the OB is ‘saying’. The market will quickly tell us whether the funny, little lines we have drawn to or from an OB had or have any basis in reality.

lj
 
Quote from ljyoung:

With respect to drawing “to” or “from” an OB, if you look closely at Spyder’s 2-3-09 chart, it is my opinion that there is no disconnect whatsoever between his renderings and those put forth by Jack (see nkhoi’s post above).

Except Jack says "start over" not carry over the line from the pre-OB bar and he doesn't clone a ltl in his illustration. So that is a disconnect.


We all appreciate that there is a huge contextual component with respect to correctly interpreting what the OB is ‘saying’. The market will quickly tell us whether the funny, little lines we have drawn to or from an OB had or have any basis in reality.

lj

Thanks for the thoughtful post. The market will indeed let you know if you have correctly identified points 1,3 and 2 of the movement under consideration. The order of arrival - 1, 2 then 3 - is important, IMO (another grey area, I think, from the previous thread).

As I posted my question I was also struck by the parallels of scholars debating The Word. Good to see some wry humour around the place.

The thing is Jack could simply clarify what he meant by case 4, hopefully he will. As I recall, he once introduced the mechanically drawn divergent tape example as a deliberate mistake to illustrate you had to wait for the next bar to have a tape with a valid rtl. If it was humour, I missed that too. Unfortunately I can't find the post where he first put up 2 bar tape construction examples (not the more recent "Cases") and I have tried the Search function with various permutations of Hershey-speak.

Imagine the trouble the world would be in if man's interpretation of God's will was this ambiguous.
 
FWIW, I think of OB's as 2 bars... and taping TO an OB (at times) allows one to keep the tapes tighter (observed at points of change and/or acceleration of pace). I also observe that OB's are special in that they tend to show up on the scene as both completion and change of some fractal OR as completion of a sequence AND as a continuation signal. I interpret Jacks "start-over" comment as meaning we reset the MODE and are looking for 1 of 2 of these outcomes following OB formations.
 
Quote from ehorn:

FWIW, I think of OB's as 2 bars...
Same opinion here - two bars in one. Two set of tapes, one set does 'something' and has a certain 'meaning' within the overall context, the other represents nothing but two parallel lines. Differentiation and a healthy dose of critical thinking is required, which I don't claim to be fully capable of :D
 
Quote from PointOne:

Except Jack says "start over" not carry over the line from the pre-OB bar and he doesn't clone a ltl in his illustration. So that is a disconnect.

Snip . . . As I recall, he once introduced the mechanically drawn divergent tape example as a deliberate mistake to illustrate you had to wait for the next bar to have a tape with a valid rtl.

This is what you were looking for:

2, 3, and 4 have two answers, each

1 and 5 only have one answer.

The answer sheet is attached.

I will also redo the posts you make and annotate my suggestions on how to avoid the errors that people can make.
 

Attachments

Here is the followup:

Here I added a thrid bar to show you where I tricked you and to also see how to resolve 2, 3, and 4 which were no clear from just two bars.

The point is that in all cases I was able to project into the future from two bars.

When is this done during the trading day?

It is done with bars 1, 2, and 3. synch is going on and you have nothing else to do.

Now you get to see that for all 5 examples you make a change in everything that comes up to start the day. what happens during the day? As the channels get set and they begin to function you are in the trades and operating between the channels to continue to hold the profit taking.

The thing that makes all channels work is the the first and third points have to be on the "right" side. The goal and target is to find the "right" side asap.

In example 5 first, I put in the answer, points 1 and three on the left side which is against the rules for anyone using channels.

example 1 is the most commmon happening.

examples 2 and 4 are the most common fake outs to start the day, so we do wait for synch and bar 3 is usually the end of the syynch period and it does define the starting trend, then. Bar four will be in the channel and the safe entry is where the bar exceeds the prior bar in the direction of the trend.

example 3 is called the "outside bar" situation. You will have 2 to three of these a day. circle them for the rest of your life. They move point one to the second bar always. and you set up from there.

example 5 was there to build confidence for you. You were saying this guy screwed up on this answer and you know better.
drawn correctly (pink) going to green you see the trend slow down as in example 1. Most two bar estimates are faster pace than the market actually turns out.

So you do the PERSPECTIVE with 2 bars and three bars puts you in the GROOVE.

All examples involve more than a point of the H-L for the day. Your objective is to get out (reverse and take profits off the left side. To enter to make the most money bar four is used. conservatively you enter when bar four goes towards the left side by exceeding bar 3. If you are hot stuff you get in on bar four when it is as far away from the left side as it can be. There is almost no way after either entry you can have a wash exit. Almost any exit makes some profit but you hold as long as you are in the channel.

When we add monitoring volume, annotating and extending channels get to be more fun because you are doing it with twice the confidence.
 

Attachments

Back
Top