On 10-case geometry and beyond

YM 2 min, full day (rth only)

Note the Lat around 11:00. I flattened just before I made first post. There was a complete volume squence within the Lat!! And then wham, shazam!! I fanned the original pink(ish) container to include the lat, which was obviously a non-dom traverse. The new container is the thick pink(ish). I messed/missed $175 or so due to the lat. Oh well. :) Gotta luv the self-correcting nature of this stuff!!!

YM-2min.png
 
Started to try out bands to see how they work. Limited to 2 bands and attempting to annotate in a simple way that for now makes some sense to my perception. I know I know I still miss most of the logic, so will need to work quite alot on iterative refinement:

qqq-2018-06-04.png
 
The bands are not that complicated.

jack hershey said:
Bands follow an OOE.

The order is alphabetic.

Specifically, one band is "on" and all others are "off".

I did save some subsettting in the mutually exclusive subsets of the Universe of EE's.

I piled several phenomena into the PP set. The phenomena include triplets, OB's and "betweens".

As you get elements while volume testing, the trend moves forward in an irreversable manner.
More...
 
Simples said:
Started to try out bands to see how they work. Limited to 2 bands and attempting to annotate in a simple way that for now makes some sense to my perception. I know I know I still miss most of the logic, so will need to work quite alot on iterative refinement:

View attachment 186916
More...


Bar237 OB is T1 upper level/P2 lower level. Since T1 is the volume element for the OB, it's not an EE.

Bar238 is a P2 as well as a new pt3.

Bar240 has progressed the trend to T2F.

T2F < T1 as True is an Fd - lvbo.

Bar241 is assigned P1. It also XO'd the RTL.

Bar242 is repeat P1.

Bar243 is a BO,T1. If the price geometry was short then it would have been a PP3.



HTH
 
Sprout said:
Bar106 OB, PP4, reverse long to short. Assign P1. BM short.
Bar107 XR, XB or OB, reverse short to long if close above BM short.

Attached is a debrief of the trend thus far. Bar92 was missed as a PP2. This had the effect of an offsetting the trend ID by of one peak. It synchs again at bar100 and mutates the PP1 to a PP1c.

I agree with @llIHeroic about the artifacts of the method presented while Jack was posting as being focused on the 5min ES futures. There is Jack's PVT which I would have initially inclined to view the QQQ's.

Applying JHM RDBMS to the degapped daily QQQ is an interesting exercise. New territory is being charted!

View attachment 184418
More...

Wouldn't bar #97 in the log (View attachment 184418) be P1, as it's accellerating (previous or assigned?) P1?
If not, what could differentiate it from bars #92 P2 to #93 P1 (> P1)?
 
Last edited:
Simples said:
Not exactly sure how to reconcile the rules here yet.
Shouldn't T2F be above T1 as well as below T2P?
More...

Yes, AND
Via MADA, the fact that the prior bar is a T2P AND not an EE makes the trend progress to the currently forming bar a test for T2F. Measured volume by EOB is whether the test is true (as you define above) OR that measured volume is in a single secondary band EE’s zone is true.
 
Simples said:
Wouldn't bar #97 in the log (View attachment 184418) be P1, as it's accellerating (previous or assigned?) P1?
If not, what could differentiate it from bars #92 P2 to #93 P1 (> P1)?
More...


The above log is associated with this chart.

It's a good question. Let's look at WCB. The trend begins at bar89 with a BO,T1.
bar90 T1
bar91 T1 repeat
bar92 P2 -> PP2
bar93 P1assigned
bar94 wait
bar95 is an interesting bar. As per Jack if both bars (94, 95) are within the H and L of bar93 then both bars are a wait. My differentiation on this bar is not complete for they still contain uncertainty. Sometimes I've observed this 3rd bar of a lateral to be as Jack says as not measurable, sometimes I see it as a measurable bar due to the geometry of the RTL.
The annotated chart, geometry of price, and the OOE is what I look to to determine the difference. All I know for certain is that during debriefing, a volume sequence will 'fit' better. I might just be making it harder on myself deviating from what Jack has defined. I just see it as exercising more mental agility. :D


Let's see which one plays out.
If bar95 is not measured then bar96 is a T1.
bar97 P2, (no P1 after T1) this P2 > P1 so it could be Ag. But there's a wait within (which Ag does not have). Aa and Ad have wait's within. Aa is out because that requires the first P2 > P1. Ad is possible and with that EE we need another P1 to present on the next bar.
bar98 T2P, so no Ad, no EE and a continuation of trend.

From here two paths
If bar98 is T2P then short continues with
bar99 T2P repeat
bar100 P1 (per volume element ranges)
bar101 T1/P2, No EE
bar102 P2
bar103 T2P < T1 -> Ab lvbo

If bar98 is BO,T1 then
bar99 BM,rev
bar100 P1
bar101 T1/P2
bar102 P2
bar103 T2P < T1 -> Ab lvbo

An alternative sequence

If bar95 is measured then bar96 is a T1
bar96 shifts to P2, since P2 < P1 this is not Aa
bar97 P2 > P1, which without the wait would be an Ag, so as is no EE
bar98 starts as a T2P < T1, then reverses on the Doji and closes near it's high. BO,T1.
bar99 BM,rev, P1assigned
bar100 P1
bar101 T1/P2
bar102 P2
bar103 T2P < T1 -> Ab lvbo

So even though there are three different sequences, each gets in/out of the trend at early/late cycle points and ultimately all get to the top of the mountain or in this case the bottom of the valley.
Imho, lats, retro, P1assigned, BO,T1's within them and OB's followed by IB's/Lats are the more difficult aspects of the logic to work out. I sense that when integrating the Modrian/Move-Reversal tables, Turns and Trend types to EE's and not relative volume, this uncertainty will resolve into greater clarity.

What supports the effort is to place BM at EE's (opposite price direction) and at P1's and T1's (if the P1 isn't clarifying) at the beginning of the trend segment. The basic idea is to couple the trend segment containers to the EE's.


HTH
 
Sprout said:
The above log is associated with this chart.
If bar98 is BO,T1 then

So even though there are three different sequences, each gets in/out of the trend at early/late cycle points and ultimately all get to the top of the mountain or in this case the bottom of the valley.
Imho, lats, retro, P1assigned, BO,T1's within them and OB's followed by IB's/Lats are the more difficult aspects of the logic to work out. I sense that when integrating the Modrian/Move-Reversal tables, Turns and Trend types to EE's and not relative volume, this uncertainty will resolve into greater clarity.

What supports the effort is to place BM at EE's (opposite price direction) and at P1's and T1's (if the P1 isn't clarifying) at the beginning of the trend segment. The basic idea is to couple the trend segment containers to the EE's.
More...

Always helpful :) Thanks, this clears up somethings.
For bar98 BO,T1 I'm not sure how that can be if 2 previous bars are P2 P1, not P1 P1, volume is not between two previous bars, and is it even third bar of a trend? Maybe if counting lat as one bar, but not quite sure about lats.
 
Sprout said:
The above log is associated with this chart.
If bar95 is not measured then bar96 is a T1.
...
If bar95 is measured then bar96 is a T1
...
More...

Stitches may be counted as internal, thus not measured per default.
However, bar #95 being IV, it gets permission.
Though, processed as Lat3, so Wait/Hold? Unless trading within lats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top