Market System of Operation

[llIHeroic]

Quote from workwithus:

I have the same EE's up to the OB bar on bar 8 where i don't see jack assigning an upper and lower volume element on bar 8.Here's how i would see that band A creation.Bar 4 is start after BO T1 and assigned a P1.Bar 5 is repeat so another P1.Bar 6 is T1.You now have your upper and lower limits for a band A (see attached post with lite blue in volume pane).Bar 7 is at first a Wait but because of Retro (on the 4th bar of a lateral go back and assign elements) you would assign bar 7 a P2 in hindsight.(I am still working thru pre and post lateral Retro rules but for now it appears once you have the 4th bar of the lateral just go back and ignore any waits plus test and assign the bars per the volume OOE's.This may result in EE's).Bar 8 is an OB and with Retro the upper level would be assigned per the volume test procedures.Since during the creation of the band A the P2 is less than the P1 the "zone" for the T2P is between the T1 and P2.My volume numbers for the T1 bar 6 are 18.2k (rounded) and for the P2 on bar 7 they're 18.4k(rounded).This results in a very narrow range for the T2P "zone".On bar 8 volume lands inside this range at 18.3k(rounded) resulting in the upper level assignment of T2P.Since there is no EE or failsafe triggers (at least that i can tell) i assign the lower level the Next element in the volume OOE's.That would be the T2F.Now i have the T2P/T2F which triggers a PP5a EE.Since the next "level" to be assigned is on the next bar (another OB) i reset the OOE sequence and assign it a P1 (on upper level) on bar 9. I then assign the Next element (T1) to the lower level on bar 9 and this results in a PP4 EE.So i reset the OOE sequence again and assign the P1 to bar 10. http://screencast.com/t/jelJcyg1MHr

Thank you for your reply. I don't believe we follow the OB procedure for the RETRO because the case of Bar 8 is Lat 3 already, and RETRO doesn't call for a re-assignment of cases within the lateral, just a test for the volume element.

I believe this is why we don't see two elements annotated for Bar 8 on Jack's Chart either. Because of this, I have Bar 8 as T2P, Bar 9 as a re-assignment of P2, and Bar 10 as LVBO Ab because the bar is less than T1. Does this make sense or have you seen examples or text that may indicate otherwise?

 

[tiddlywinks]

Since I'm rogue, I won't/can't offer credible insight into your analysis flummoxes.
What I will do however is mention what I see (ie IMO) going on.

You guys have lost perspective of how to make money. You've got 300 seconds in real-time to monitor and make your analysis and decisions, bar-by-bar. You are failing.

As a one-time suggestion, review and use tapes, traverses and channels as the foundation to overlay your analysis into. I've attached the pic which is posted previously in this thread.

BTW: I don't know if Jack is dissing this discussion/journal, or formulating responses. What I do know is that Jack has made posts in other threads as recently as yesterday, in ET-conversational type threads.

Carry On.

 

[llIHeroic]

Quote from tiddlywinks:

Since I'm rogue, I won't/can't offer credible insight into your analysis flummoxes.
What I will do however is mention what I see (ie IMO) going on.

You guys have lost perspective of how to make money. You've got 300 seconds in real-time to monitor and make your analysis and decisions, bar-by-bar. You are failing.

As a one-time suggestion, review and use tapes, traverses and channels as the foundation to overlay your analysis into. I've attached the pic which is posted previously in this thread.

BTW: I don't know if Jack is dissing this discussion/journal, or formulating responses. What I do know is that Jack has made posts in other threads as recently as yesterday, in ET-conversational type threads.

Carry On.

Thank you for your advice. I would agree that the focus of this thread is not to make money. I would hope that all of the active participants are able to make money to varying degrees by trading with what they already know, since I see that they tend to be competent, humble, and hard-working.

The purpose of this thread is to understand the System of Market Operation, and to learn how to take the full offer of the market. The geometric construct that was used in the past can be effective, but has been moved away from for a reason. It seems to me that it fell short as a medium of taking the full offer of the market and especially for differentiating between Trend Types since it is modeled after the basic C Type Trend, so people moved on from it.

Jack may not have posted here in the past three days, but I think our thread is still on track for the purpose it was started. We are conducting iterative refinement, and working towards towards fully understanding the RDBMS that Jack developed, and I know for myself that I am learning something new each day.

---

Our current efforts are to pool our knowledge and see if we can come to an agreement of all the annotations for [12-17]. Perhaps after we get that, Jack can review it for us with the chart that we used.

Currently we are discussing whether Bar 8 is treated as an OB or not since is in the middle of the lateral. If workwithus agrees with my understanding that OB testing is not carried out within laterals, or knows of any material that states otherwise, we will annotate correctly and continue through the day. Anyone with a knowledge of logging is welcome to weigh in.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Quote from llIHeroic:


...
The geometric construct that was used in the past can be effective, but has been moved away from for a reason. It seems to me that it fell short as a medium of taking the full offer of the market and especially for differentiating between Trend Types since it is modeled after the basic C Type Trend, so people moved on from it.
...

Geez Hero, you are surrounded by trees and don't realize you are in a forest.
"THE PATTERN" is used, distributed, referenced and carries mandatory usage.
In fact "THE PATTERN" is the OOE for the system of operation!
Nothing about the "geometric construct" has been "moved away from".

Carry on.
Back to my cave.

 

[llIHeroic]

Quote from tiddlywinks:

Geez Hero, you are surrounded by trees and don't realize you are in a forest.
"THE PATTERN" is used, distributed, referenced and carries mandatory usage.
In fact "THE PATTERN" is the OOE for the system of operation!
Nothing about the "geometric construct" has been "moved away from".

Carry on.
Back to my cave.

I am appreciative of your help, but I think you misunderstood what I was writing. As I have stated, the Pattern is based off of a Type C Trend. I am aware of the OOE in a type C trend. The geometry of the dependent variable as a primary means of extracting the full offer has been moved away from in favor of the RDBMS.

There is a discussion about this matter beginning around page 115 of the previous thread. Perhaps this post in particular may communicate what I am attempting to say better than I have been. However, in order to avoid straying too far off the direct focus of this thread, let's continue this conversation via PM if necessary.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=275733&perpage=6&pagenumber=116

I am quite appreciative of your help and participation in the thread, thank you for continuing provide support for us!

 

[smwbbe]

Quote from llIHeroic: SNIP
We can begin the transference. It will start from the beginning. It is recommended that serious learners archive, store, and organize the contents of this thread along with the required work in order to help the transference process go smoothly.

JH has generously posted in multiple ET threads about this system. Restricting yourself to just this thread or even just the "butt" thread will be a hindrance to the learning process.

Quote from llIHeroic: SNIP
The purpose of this thread is to understand the System of Market Operation, and to learn how to take the full offer of the market.
Jack may not have posted here in the past three days, but I think our thread is still on track for the purpose it was started. We are conducting iterative refinement, and working towards fully understanding the RDBMS that Jack developed...

I tend to agree with xioxxio that the incessant posting about a bar or two is not creating an enticing environment for JH to post in or for others to get in on the conversation.

Quote from llIHeroic: SNIP
Currently we are discussing whether Bar 8 is treated as an OB or not since is in the middle of the lateral. If workwithus agrees with my understanding that OB testing is not carried out within laterals, or knows of any material that states otherwise, we will annotate correctly and continue through the day. Anyone with knowledge of logging is welcome to weigh in.

JH has made multiple posts about laterals - in the “butt” thread and others. All I did was a search with the word, laterals, and by JH. Here are just two posts (of MANY) where details are provided:

Laterals. In the price cases one case is the lateral. It takes three price bars to define a lateral.
A lateral is three bars whereby the second and third bars are in the shadow of the first bar. H and L of the first bar can be equaled but not exceeded in a more extreme way.
Volume must also be less than the first bar's volume.
Laterals can continue further in a trend.
The rule is different after bar three created a lateral. The rule is that the next bars are lateral bars if the close is within the limits of the high and low of bar 1 of the lateral. Equal to is regarded as within.
When the close fails to meet the rule a Lateral Break Out (BO) has occurred. A squish is used to determine the character of the BO bar of the lateral.
All lateral bars are wait bars beginning with the second bar. The first bar is named in volume using SOP.
A retro naming occurs on bar 4 of the lateral. All succeeding other bars are also named.
This means a turn could have happened. Do the trading action on bar 4 as SOP.
Retro means use the logging column labeled retro beginning with bar two of the lateral.
You are logging according to the volume test procedure to get the volume name of each bar.
The purpose of this is to keep up with the subfractal forwarding in a trend.
The main principal in bar by bar monitoring and analysis is to keep current with the formation of trends at all times.
If bars have gaps, then you have to adjust the limits of the lateral. Orange rays are used for this purpose. Set your chart ray default to orange for rapid degap adjustments.
This post covers permission from volume to do the independent variable testing of volume.

--

Lats require three bars to be defined. Bar 1 has H and L.
Bars two and three cannot exceed H and L.
After bar 3 (bar 4 and onward) the close cannot exceed the H and L.
If and when the close exceeds H or L, then a BO has occurred.
To fit the lats into the trading approach I have been using a "retro" set of rules. On bar 4 I begin to go back to unnamed bars (in volume) and name them. Every bar is named without exception. This continues going forward until break out of the lateral.
If a turn has occurred, practically speaking, I get on the correct side of the market ASAP.

 

[llIHeroic]

Well, thank you everyone for bringing to my attention the shift in the learning environment within the thread. I offer my apologies for being resistant to the message you were attempting to send (tiddlywinks, xioxxio). Once several people come along with the same feeling, it becomes much more apparent to me that I am likely the one who has lost some perspective. I am grateful for all of the patience put forth by the participants in this thread.

I had perceived that the thread has been losing some focus in understanding the different situations that arise within the volume test procedure. My thought to remedy this was the idea of focusing on getting through the annotations for a single day, which is what workwithus and I began to do. Our first question arose on the testing of Bar 8, where we had a difference in understanding between the two of us that I believe has now been resolved and it is possible to continue forward.

However, I am definitely appreciative of everyone's input in order to create a better learning process. If those more experienced with the RDBMS do not think that this the best way to go about trying to refine our understanding of it, I would definitely like to make some changes.

What are some things that we can all do in order to better the learning process in this thread? tiddlywinks has recommended to re-focus on the big picture as we study, and not lose sight of the major channels and traverses for the day. Are there any other suggestions or details on how we can go about accomplishing our goal together, in a more effective manner?

All of the feedback given is always appreciated, thank you again everyone for putting forth time and effort into this thread.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Quote from llIHeroic:

Well, thank you everyone for bringing to my attention the shift in the learning environment within the thread. I offer my apologies for being resistant to the message you were attempting to send (tiddlywinks, xioxxio). Once several people come along with the same feeling, it becomes much more apparent to me that I am likely the one who has lost some perspective. I am grateful for all of the patience put forth by the participants in this thread.

I had perceived that the thread has been losing some focus in understanding the different situations that arise within the volume test procedure. My thought to remedy this was the idea of focusing on getting through the annotations for a single day, which is what workwithus and I began to do. Our first question arose on the testing of Bar 8, where we had a difference in understanding between the two of us that I believe has now been resolved and it is possible to continue forward.

However, I am definitely appreciative of everyone's input in order to create a better learning process. If those more experienced with the RDBMS do not think that this the best way to go about trying to refine our understanding of it, I would definitely like to make some changes.

What are some things that we can all do in order to better the learning process in this thread? tiddlywinks has recommended to re-focus on the big picture as we study, and not lose sight of the major channels and traverses for the day. Are there any other suggestions or details on how we can go about accomplishing our goal together, in a more effective manner?

All of the feedback given is always appreciated, thank you again everyone for putting forth time and effort into this thread.

tiddlywinks has recommended to re-focus on the big picture as we study, and not lose sight of the major channels and traverses for the day.

Unlike some seem to think, this thread IS about making money. Money is made based on values (and formations) in the price pane. The volume pane provides timing indicators rooted in the 5 OOEs that are simple to visualize within the price pane.

As a reminder I am a rogue. I do not do intrabar degapping, I do not trade ES, and I generally use a time frame faster than 5min. Without real-time confusion or action hesitation, "the big picture" and the associated minimum of 3 fractals visible in ANY timeframe (tape, traverse, channel), works for my manual trading.

I make the suggestion (not a recommendation) as a means to break the analysis flummox and gain big-picture working insight along with method flexibility.

 

[frenchfry]

Quote from smwbbe:

..
All lateral bars are wait bars beginning with the second bar.

All... except those situations when the second bar has higher volume than the first bar.

You only know that you have a lateral when you have bar 3 but in the meantime you already used/named volume bar two already because you had a UL situation. I think an example was the recent discussion about the first lateral on the 12-17 chart.

 

[smwbbe]

Quote from llIHeroic: SNIP
Can you post all of your EE's and their sentiments for [12-17]?

Bar 4: BO T1 - Long

I believe the area on the chart for 12/17/13 was done incorrectly. If bar 2 is a P1 and bar 3 is a repeat (another P1), you don't have a T1 yet at bar 4 to have a BO,T1. Bar 4 is the T1 and the RTL is drawn to the top of bar 4 and no BO,T1 occurs as the close of bar 5 is inside the RTL.

Understanding BO,T1 has been a real bugaboo for me. Going by the interaction between frenchfry and JH that I've quoted below, it must have been a mistake on the 12/17 chart. And that's the thing - mistakes happen and it's ok.

Quote from frenchfry:
In order to log a BO,T1 is it really necessary to have a T1 or do we simply call all BO's as BO,T1?

Quote from jack hershey:
Yes it is necessary to have a T1. This is an AND circuit. BO of RTL = true AND T1 = true.