On 10-case geometry and beyond

[Sprout]

An update on NQ 4min. What an exercise this turned into, tracking the wide container.
Recall, the point is...
containers are defined through volume, not through visual geometry.

On your trading fractal this is true. However this is not accurate for all time scales. For example, using a two-bar geometry, volume does not define the container, visual geometry does. Visual geometry asserts it's dominance and non-Dominance in contrast to volume defining containers. The current bar of a two bar comparison is either within trend or XO of established RTL. Within trend it is either a FTT, a touch on the LTL or a VE.

The caveat are lateral formations which is an indicator of sub-fractals asserting their dominance.

In a two bar comparison, the legs of the bars can be seen on a faster timescale exhibiting the phenomenon you describe. I suspect this is one of the reason's you choose to trade off the 4min.


So the previous iteration of this chart had points 1 and supposed 2. Non-dom volume did not follow point 2, making P2 questionable. And at the open on Friday a NEW P2 formed, followed by the required non-dom volume for P3. There are at least 5 fractals in play on this chart , imo. It is very easy to fractal jump even with thinking.

There are hundreds of more trading fractals on your chart. To your credit, they are not easily seen though your display and data coupling resolution. When I get a chance, I'll post more of what I refer to.

Comments are within quoted text.

Something similar to the above quote, one of the statements that I took as true that I eventually came to conclusion that my interpretation of the statement was incorrect is the concept that ALL gaussians sequences MUST complete.
Well, I suppose this is true for the given context it was originally presented within. However, the market has demonstrated that this is not true all the time. Trends can and are interrupted at anytime. The updated context is that (without the arrival of Dominant volume in the opposite price direction), volume gaussians will complete - on this timescale or a faster one.

 

[stepan7]

I eventually came to conclusion that my interpretation of the statement was incorrect is the concept that ALL gaussians sequences MUST complete.

I think the above is wrong conclusion.
"Price trend will not change until volume complete sequences on all fractals." - is cardinal rule of JHM.
Without that rule it could be anything but JHM.

 

[Sprout]

"Price trend will not change until volume complete sequences on all fractals." - is cardinal rule of JHM.
Without that rule it could be anything but JHM.

Sure, I agree with your sentiment. If you wouldn't mind, let's see the exact quote from Jack and it's context.

The above statement can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I first came across that concept with Spydertrader's TL thread. The way I misinterpreted it was that a trend on a larger timeframe must complete it's volume gaussians on that timeframe. I also assumed that gaussians and volume events were equivalent.

A more accurate statement is that the volume OOE's must complete before the start of a new trend with similar fractal sized containers.

Jack advocated the use of the Johari window.
I haven't come across the "Price trend will not change until volume complete sequences on all fractals." statement by him, so I missed it, if it indeed exists.


Volume sequences and volume gaussians are not the same thing. Volume sequences can complete within a gaussian. There can be multiple gaussians for a particular volume event. Jack's RDBMS defines this exactly, without flaws, anomalies or exceptions. By it's very design it has defined all possible permutations of price and volume movements.

If one treats the 10 price cases and the 11 volume elements as a multiplication table, a complete set comes into view. That set can be divided into like-to-like buckets giving the 56 unique and individual components.

I speak from applying my understanding of Jack's writings, doing every drill I could find, coming up with some of my own drills and applying it to experience the turning point of consistent profitability. My understanding experienced a higher-order level of congruency by recently completing his "20 days to expert" challenge.

Exercising MADA manually leads to a very different place than having it performed programmatically.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Comments are within quoted text.

Something similar to the above quote, one of the statements that I took as true that I eventually came to conclusion that my interpretation of the statement was incorrect is the concept that ALL gaussians sequences MUST complete.
Well, I suppose this is true for the given context it was originally presented within. However, the market has demonstrated that this is not true all the time. Trends can and are interrupted at anytime. The updated context is that (without the arrival of Dominant volume in the opposite price direction), volume gaussians will complete - on this timescale or a faster one.

Recall, the point is...
containers are defined through volume, not through visual geometry.

On your trading fractal this is true. However this is not accurate for all time scales. For example, using a two-bar geometry, volume does not define the container, visual geometry does. Visual geometry asserts it's dominance and non-Dominance in contrast to volume defining containers. The current bar of a two bar comparison is either within trend or XO of established RTL. Within trend it is either a FTT, a touch on the LTL or a VE.

On MY trading fractal... that's a good one sprout! It reminds me of a scene in My Cousin Vinny
... perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were these magic grits?!?

It applies to 2-bar geometry as well, it is just not seen in a volume histogram. 1,2,3,ftt,whatever, are fungible in that it is a point, not necessarily the same point, in at least one (or more) faster, AND possibly one (or more) slower fractals. You mentioned there are 100's of fractals on the chart. I agree. It's interesting Jack suggested annotating geometry and gaussians of 3 fractals, and simultaneously used 7 pace levels. That's because he knew there were more than 3 fractals with any time-based chart, and pace is an aid in seeing. Please note, I agree visual geometry of 2-bar (and other fractals) in real-time is fine for a coarse generalized view as long as its in-accuracy is considered. That means using some sort of application of the sequence(s) being monitored, whatever application that may be.

The caveat are lateral formations which is an indicator of sub-fractals asserting their dominance.

Huh? Lateral formations an "indicator" of sub-fractals asserting dominance? Huh?
I'm currently doing all sorts of study and stuff with laterals. I've never seen anything described even remotely as you've mentioned. It's either an Aha or some invention. Im on the side of some invention, at this time.

In a two bar comparison, the legs of the bars can be seen on a faster timescale exhibiting the phenomenon you describe. I suspect this is one of the reason's you choose to trade off the 4min.

As I've mentioned before, my primary trading chart is 2min. I trade tapes(lately) point-to-point, and when I have a well defined wider container, I attempt to hold through for wider container point. I am not SCT, but I do quite of daily trading.

There are hundreds of more trading fractals on your chart. To your credit, they are not easily seen though your display and data coupling resolution.

Agree. As mentioned above.

 

[llIHeroic]

I think the above is wrong conclusion.
"Price trend will not change until volume complete sequences on all fractals." - is cardinal rule of JHM.
Without that rule it could be anything but JHM.

FWIW I agree with stepan and tiddlywinks. That is Spyder's teaching in a nutshell. This is the cardinal difference between what Jack was doing later on and what Spyder did imo. Spyder defined containers with price AND volume requirements, and three identical containers completed the X2X 2Y 2X of a slower fractal. Spyder spoke pretty clearly late in his thread about how you need to make the 2Y and the 2X just how you made the X2X.

He was clear that there is are minimum requirements needed to build certain fractals, and price will keep going until we get that.

Jack often watched the visible fractal which doesn't always have the same rhyme or reason and the sequences aren't visible. I can see where you're coming from Sprout, but you're looking through the lens of the RDBMS and bar by bar tapes and it doesn't seem like you've had the aha moments for fractal integrity and the objective consistency of the x2x2y2x gaussian sequence.

That definitely isn't the end all of the method, seeing as Spyder was profitable back when he was jumping fractals, before he was even drawing complete gaussians. But doing what you're doing compared to looking at the big picture sequences is like apples to oranges. There's going to be a lot of mis-communications trying to compare the two.

 

[Sprout]

Recall, the point is...
containers are defined through volume, not through visual geometry.


On MY trading fractal... that's a good one sprout! It reminds me of a scene in My Cousin Vinny
... perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were these magic grits?!?

No magic grits here, just a different vantage point.
The bowl of cooking grits has different cooking times when compared to sea-level and various levels of altitude. The law of physics did not change. The idea that cooking grits has the same cooking times anywhere in the world would be mostly true since the majority of the world's population lives in coastal regions.
However it is not true when the effects of altitude are considered as well as observing the outlying data that doesn't fit the current model.

A case in point are in observing larger trends. Frequently, in looking for a point 3 of a current Dominant trend (that is in it's non-Dominant move) doesn't have the increasing volume we expect to see. It comes in the next bar and subsequent bars. From a geometry pov the increasing volume bar cannot touch the RTL without the RTL going through the previous LL. One can define the previous bar as a FBO, but from a strict "price container" pov it cannot for the TL's bound ALL price, not just open and closes.


It applies to 2-bar geometry as well, it is just not seen in a volume histogram. 1,2,3,ftt,whatever, are fungible in that it is a point, not necessarily the same point, in at least one (or more) faster, AND possibly one (or more) slower fractals. You mentioned there are 100's of fractals on the chart. I agree. It's interesting Jack suggested annotating geometry and gaussians of 3 fractals, and simultaneously used 7 pace levels. That's because he knew there were more than 3 fractals with any time-based chart, and pace is an aid in seeing. Please note, I agree visual geometry of 2-bar (and other fractals) in real-time is fine for a coarse generalized view as long as its in-accuracy is considered. That means using some sort of application of the sequence(s) being monitored, whatever application that may be.

I feel we are describing the same phenomenon but have different views on accuracy. Pace can be seen as you described. It can also be viewed as the slope of the RTL as we move to faster and faster fractal containers.


Huh? Lateral formations an "indicator" of sub-fractals asserting dominance? Huh?
I'm currently doing all sorts of study and stuff with laterals. I've never seen anything described even remotely as you've mentioned. It's either an Aha or some invention. Im on the side of some invention, at this time.

If one starts to define laterals via bar count and the presence of laterals within laterals, my view will make more sense. It was my engaging in the "Retro" process where I came to this conclusion.

Tiddlywinks, I thought you were rogue?

Comments within quoted text.

 

[Sprout]

FWIW I agree with stepan and tiddlywinks. That is Spyder's teaching in a nutshell. This is the cardinal difference between what Jack was doing later on and what Spyder did imo. Spyder defined containers with price AND volume requirements, and three identical containers completed the X2X 2Y 2X of a slower fractal. Spyder spoke pretty clearly late in his thread about how you need to make the 2Y and the 2X just how you made the X2X.

He was clear that there is are minimum requirements needed to build certain fractals, and price will keep going until we get that.

Jack often watched the visible fractal which doesn't always have the same rhyme or reason and the sequences aren't visible. I can see where you're coming from Sprout, but you're looking through the lens of the RDBMS and bar by bar tapes and it doesn't seem like you've had the aha moments for fractal integrity and the objective consistency of the x2x2y2x gaussian sequence.

I appreciate the empathy, thank you. My confusion started to clear when I logged completely and throughly. Our viewpoints interlace and are complimentary and congruent. I understand if one doesn't see it that way.


That definitely isn't the end all of the method, seeing as Spyder was profitable back when he was jumping fractals, before he was even drawing complete gaussians. But doing what you're doing compared to looking at the big picture sequences is like apples to oranges. There's going to be a lot of mis-communications trying to compare the two.

From one pov, yes. However, there is a pov that brings the entire picture into increasing focus. It'll take all who are interested in the transference process to accomplish it.

To be clear, I'm an avid student of Jack's method and willing to share insights that I derived from my own work. There are times where I can trade in the various fractal zones as an advanced expert. That's with Jack's previous work. My current goals are to be trading more exclusively in these zones and to bring RDBMS from a learning environment for me into a production one.

Any assertion that I'm a master of these methods would be premature and is not my intention. I am sharing what I can see and can point out. I also apply my own logical rigor and will not accept at face value anything as a belief without performing my own due diligence. Mastery (as I define it expands beyond the individual) is the ability to uplift.

I started posting to fulfill the promise of paying-it-forward. My style of communicating works for some and not so much for others. I had no idea of Jack's RDBMS. All I did was apply purposeful learning to the final iteration of his life's work. I am grateful that all the pieces are still available for any willing to collect them and piece them together through thinking. If one derives value from his methods, I encourage pursuing the knowledge through to it's logical next step.

edit:
I almost walked away from all of it. I hit the wall of my own frustration, doubt and uncertainty. I'm grateful beyond measure for following through with my intention.

Thank you for your comment. I've been hoping to delay responding directly to you, prior to accomplishing the thing that you requested from me. All I can say at this time is that it's on deck and moving through milestones, getting ready for the first pitch of the season.

Comments included in quoted text.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Tiddlywinks, I thought you were rogue?

I am rogue!!

I don't use a 5 min chart, and as far as TRADING is concerned, 4 hour is the max I look at. I shun degapping, and with disdain for bar-by-bar degapping. Carryover is a hit or miss concept because overnight prints matter. Additionally, I believe EEs ala JHv2, are not usable trade signals by themselves and they promote over-trading, fractal jumping, and in general I consider fishing for a trade. Furthermore, I use astro methods(in addition to JH) to anticipate points, peaks, and troughs. Astro is anchored and immutable in TIME.

FWIW, regarding lats I have a new lat-end. It's possible this is part of "retro" process (which I do not use/do), but here it is, invention or not, for you to determine... while lat remains valid, ANY pricebar that can be considered an OB to the first bar of the lat ends the lat, and is treated as an OB. That's ANY bar while the lat is active, that can be considered an OB to the lat itself. The bar is not required to be an OB to its previous bar, and it's close does not matter. End the lat, and treat the bar as you would an OB.

Trade On!

 

[Sprout]

I am rogue!!

I don't use a 5 min chart, and as far as TRADING is concerned, 4 hour is the max I look at. I shun degapping, and with disdain for bar-by-bar degapping. Carryover is a hit or miss concept because overnight prints matter. Additionally, I believe EEs ala JHv2, are not usable trade signals by themselves and they promote over-trading, fractal jumping, and in general I consider fishing for a trade. Furthermore, I use astro methods(in addition to JH) to anticipate points, peaks, and troughs. Astro is anchored and immutable in TIME.

Although I'm certain of your effectiveness with extracting profits from the markets, the above statements have another side. It is this other side that lies waiting for your excellence. I understand the statements you made fit within your belief system.

Your belief or not doesn't effect whether any of the above are true. Ala is a complete system not a la carte. A la carte might feed one's hunger at the corner all you can eat buffet, but experiencing the full course meal at a 5 star restaurant is an experience unto itself which demands a premium.

As for fractal jumping, that does not happen with ala JHv2 when the VTP is applied correctly. It's about extracting capital efficiently and effectively with every single trend whether it's one bar in duration or hundreds.

How does one know correctly? The ala method is similar to a water pump. The pump is pumping water or not. When not, there was a mis-ID. When corrected, the pump works again. It's exact and accurate. Any perception otherwise is within the mental morass of the individual trader.

I speak from being stuck on a particular logging segment. It would have been easier to step over it. Instead, the focus was on his repeated sentiment of learn to see the market's full offer. That weekend, after many, many attempts to ID the correct sequence, I did indeed begin to see the market's full offer. When the ID is correct and one knows what the next event will be, and that event occurs, this repeated experience changes one.

There was another thing that he said that really stuck with me. I paraphrase "You know at some point you'll see that drawdowns are not necessary and do not need to be experienced." These two statements inspired in me the desire to be an advanced expert trader as Jack defines it. My market traumatized ego had different thoughts. I began to replace those disempowering thoughts one-by-one. This process had the effect of altering my perception. I understand we can both be looking at the same data and coming up with entirely different conclusions. I respect that. I also respect you and my intention is that my words will reflect that there is more to realize with Jack's work and not anything else that was not intended.


FWIW, regarding lats I have a new lat-end. It's possible this is part of "retro" process (which I do not use/do), but here it is, invention or not, for you to determine... while lat remains valid, ANY pricebar that can be considered an OB to the first bar of the lat ends the lat, and is treated as an OB. That's ANY bar while the lat is active, that can be considered an OB to the lat itself. The bar is not required to be an OB to its previous bar, and it's close does not matter. End the lat, and treat the bar as you would an OB.

Any OB that fits your description would also be an OB to every bar within the lat. The exception is a (the prior XR or XB) bar whose high or low pierced the lateral boundary or if your definition of first bar of lat is different than mine.

Some OB are turns others are not. Some OB's will end the lateral, some will not. The knowledge to know the difference is where our difference lies.

Trade On!

Comments within quoted text.

I find it a bit humorous for those whom derived value from Jack's perspective to not give the man his full due. He's a systems genius, the best thinkers of humanity are his peers. If one follows his directions, there is a realized promise. The view is witnessing the market's full offer. The market's FULL OFFER.

Everything pales in comparison. It's just the way it is.

It's all about slowing down the pitch and seeing the stripes on that ball.

Going with the nautical analogy, it's shifting from a monohull sailboat to a hydro-foiled trimaran.

Jack is a man who keeps his promises. I say this in the present tense because his thoughts and perspective live on in his writings and the discussion thereof.

Cheers!

 

[tiddlywinks]

You've pissed me off sprout. I did not put Jack down, his methods, or even you for that matter. The fact is I learned directly from Jack and Spyder, did my (initial)studies with and through them, made my own determinations as to what if any portion of the teachings/methods would be valid FOR ME (and I was a profitable trader BEFORE that time), and then proceeded down MY PATH... Not Jacks path, Spyders, Heros, or anyone elses, MY path. And I have ALWAYS spoke of Jack and Spyder with respect, good memories, and internal thanks/gratitude.

Get off your high fucking horse! If origami helps you trade, cool. But that remains to be determined.

BTW... Yes, it would be OB to all bars WITHIN a lat. However, if adjacent to ANY bar, not just XB,XR, that pierces the boundary(s), my description stands. And it may or may not be an OB to any other bars that previously pierced boundary(s) but did not end the lat. FYI...merely piercing a boundary is not a lat-end.