Iterative Refinement

[romanus]

Quote from Jander:

...I dont see how "depends on the context" keeps getting thrown around as a vague answer to every question. If a 'yes' or 'no' answer is sufficient at every decision point, one would think that there is a hard set of rules or decision tree available. Perhaps I am off base, or this does exist in the form of neverending if,then,else splits that noone has taken the time to post.

used to feel the same way until allowed for the possibility that vague was my understanding, of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but here's an example:
1. decreasing black volume in (context)= UP TREND means ...
2. decreasing black volume in (context)= DOWN TREND means ...
3. decreasing black volume after (context) = FORMATION BO on INCREASED BLACK VOLUME means ...
... etc.

 

[Jander]

Quote from romanus:

used to feel the same way until allowed for the possibility that vague was my understanding, of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but here's an example:
1. decreasing black volume in (context)= UP TREND means ...
2. decreasing black volume in (context)= DOWN TREND means ...
3. decreasing black volume after (context) = FORMATION BO on INCREASED BLACK VOLUME means ...
... etc.

Not sure what you are getting at I'm sure it's my understanding that is vague, not arguing the validity of anyone's statements.

Are there a finite set of contexts? What all elements can apply in a given context? Do fractals have any effect on context? These are the questions Im pondering...

 

[Tums]

Quote from Jander:

...I dont see how "depends on the context" keeps getting thrown around as a vague answer to every question. If a 'yes' or 'no' answer is sufficient at every decision point, one would think that there is a hard set of rules or decision tree available. Perhaps I am off base, or this does exist in the form of neverending if,then,else splits that noone has taken the time to post.

Let me see if this can ease your frustration.


This response is not directed specifically at you. Because we have all been down that path at one time or another. Therefore this is for all to ponder and discuss:

1. There is a conspiracy. We want to torture all the newbies. There is a little boy's club here. If you do not belong, you don't get the answer.

2. You have asked a vague question, with many possible answers. The decision tree directs you the the branch --> maybe, depends, etc., There is no possible "Yes" or "No" answer to your question.

3. You have not understood the basics (eg, the Jokari Window), or you have asked a question without questioning it in the light of the basics building blocks of the method (eg. Jokari Window, etc).

4. You have asked a question without context. Therefore the answer must be: depends on the context. Instead of feeling frustrated, you can accept that answer... then take a step further to review the "contexts" possible under the circumstances... then narrow down your scenario to a specific context and ask your question along that context...

5. You have asked a question beyond the Hershey methodology.



Bear in mind this is not a Red Light Green Light system. Binary does not mean Reg Light Green Light.
Let me give you a scenario: You are LONG and the signal is CHANGE.
Do you exit? Do you hold? Do you reverse?
Can you answer the question without using the word "depends"?

 

[romanus]

Quote from Jander:

Are there a finite set of contexts?

I certainly hope so. Up/Down channel, Formation BO/FBO, dominant/non dominant traverse, X?, Y?, ...

Quote from Jander:

What all elements can apply in a given context?

I suspect the answer lies in sequences and WMCN, although I could be wrong.

Quote from Jander:

These are the questions Im pondering...

I am doing the same.

Quote from Jander:

Not sure what you are getting at

No sinister intent, rest assured.

 

[Jander]

Quote from Tums:

Bear in mind this is not a Red Light Green Light system. Binary does not mean Reg Light Green Light.
Let me give you a scenario: You are long and the signal is change.
Do you exit? Do you hold? Do you reverse?
Can you answer the question without using the word "depends"?

Ok.. Maybe I deserved that diatribe at the beginning. I accept that not every question is able to be answered with a yes/no/long/short. I will attempt to uncover my misunderstandings with a bit more detail as to clear the air of any hint of ambiguity in the future.


Binary by definition means having 2 possible outcomes. If you are saying that this is not a long/short system, I accept that. I guess it is up to the individual trader as to what points in the sequence denote the long/short signals.

To answer your question:: When long, I hold until a pt3 down confirms. I believe that means I hold through several change signals. How would you answer that question?

Thanks for the discussion fellas

 

[Tums]

Quote from Jander:
To answer your question:: When long, I hold until a pt3 down confirms. I believe that means I hold through several change signals. How would you answer that question?
Thanks for the discussion fellas

Sorry, it was meant as an open question to illustrate how difficult it is to arrive at an intelligent answer without context...


edit:

--> because it depends on where you are in relation to the market... ie what is your context? are you on leg one up? leg 2 down? leg 3 up? or leg one down? leg 2 up? leg 3 down?

--> depends on what is the change signal... is it decreasing black volume? or peak black volume? or peak red volume? or decreasing red volume? ...etc.,

the list goes on...



:-(

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from Jander:

If you are saying that this is not a long/short system, I accept that.

This isn't a long / short system. Long / short refers to instructions given to a broker. The system signals continuation or change. Nothing more. Nothing less. Whether one chooses to send a long or short order to the broker depends on context.

By example,

Increasing red Volume in a down trend = hold short
Increasing red Volume where Price closes back inside a Pennant Formation after a BO = reverse

Note how both scenarios showed increasing red Volume. However, one example differed from the other based on context. In this specific example, both scenarios showed dominant red Volume (downtrend). By adding the additional context to the second scenario (Pennant FBO), the answer to what must come next, changes. Throw in Peak Volume and we have an additional context change. In addition, increasing on ES but decreasing on YM presents yet another change in context.

How a trader translates these signals of continuation or change into long or short orders to their broker also depends on context. You have already articulated one area where you specifically have chosen to hold, rather than, follow the signals of change. Your decision was based entirely on context and is appropriate to that specific context. Change the context, and your decision changes as well.

HTH

- Spydertrader

 

[stepan7]

Quote from Tums:

The shortest distance between pt A and pt B is a straight line.

Above statement is true for Euclidean geometry.

If someone's soul are living in Lobachevsky(non-Euclidean) geometry, the statment is not applicable.

Stepan

 

[Tums]

Quote from stepan7:
Above statement is true for Euclidean geometry.
If someone's soul are living in Lobachevsky(non-Euclidean) geometry, the statment is not applicable.
Stepan

When Lobachevsky was at Kazan University, he studied under professor Johann Christian Martin Bartels, who was a teacher and friend of German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss. (Of the Gaussian fame.)

We are all in the same family. We will bend the "Hyper" into a straight line.


;-)

 

[ivob]

Quote from Tums:

...


Why would you... "on very strong trending day: I will only enter on pt3 in opposite direction."

How can this be a "Rule"? This is Anti-Hershey, Anti-SCT, Anti-everything we have learned so far.

i.e. stay at the Forest Pt3 if you are not ready for Pt1. But when you are ready... why should there be a rule to stop you?

Maybe you misunderstood me.

First of all it was an example. The example was: "If I go countertrend on a trending day I would only do it on a point 3 in the opposite direction". My question was not if that is a good thing to do, my question was if this is an example of "different situation requires different domino's to fall". Trending days can be stubborn so I want some more domino's to fall before changing position long/short. That's why I mentioned it.

However, regarding this specific example: I don't see what is wrong with this and how it conflicts with anything we have learned. It's up to each individual when to enter and exit using this method. I also recall a conversation beween you and me on May 13th and you wrote me (literally):

1) I want to trade with the trend
2) if I were to go countertrend, I would not pick a point one FTT...
3) to go countertrend (I use 20ma as my easy trend director).... I would wait for a point 3

My example mentions exactly the same... In fact it was you who inspired me to come up with it in the first place. However, it could just as well be another example of another situation in which you require some more, or other, domino's to fall.

regards,
Ivo