On 10-case geometry and beyond

NeedToLearn said:
On this chart, around bar 15 or so (7:40ish your time) You had P1 and then what appears to be degapped FTP (UL event) P1 followed by the next bar marked as BO,T1.

Yes, good eye. It is a degapped FTP (unlabeled UL event).


Can I ask what prompted you to label that bar as a BO,T1 instead of a wait bar? My decision around there was to wait for 7:55 XB bar (bar 17) to annotate as T1 and drew a RTL from the first P1 (bar 14) connecting to bar 17.
—-
Waits are waits unless a Failsafe overrides. Typically, we are logging a T1 prior to logging a BO,T1. However this is not the only event that establishes a RTL. A wait can establish a RTL as well as a repeat of P1. In both of these cases there is no T1 in volume but there is a pt3 in price. There might be some disagreement in the above and I admit that it seems to ‘go against’ some of the ‘rules’.

What I’m looking for is whether the turn ID and Trend ID is congruent with the bar ID.



Do you have instances where you get multiple P1s and use the RTL from those for BO,T1?
—-
I do and it’s my current operating point. I’ve gone back and forth on it and debriefed it multiple ways. It can be frustrating in the beginning, not knowing what answer is the right one. In these moments, I think ‘what would Jack be thinking?’ Since his work focused on extracting the market’s full offer, the windows for profit extraction become more abundant which is useful to think about when considering all the logic that goes into ‘knowing that you know’ on each and every 5m bar.

In other words, by going through the VTP process on each bar, the mind gets strengthened as confidence gives way to doubt. It’s more important to go through the process than correctly ID’ing a bar, it’s the mistakes discovered during debriefing that do more in building differentiation.

As another example, the recent discussion around F-band illuminated to me the timing priority of which to consider first, the bar’s event or an EE. Surely the correct answer is important as a destination, as a journey there’s a lot a satisfaction to be had in coming to the correct answer.

HTH
More...

Comments within quoted text
 
Sprout said:
Comments within quoted text
More...
Thanks. Lately, I have been thinking more about the process being the important part for this method. There was a document, in the 'IAGMBH...' thread, by Jack about some of his trades and how he carves. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-handed-to-me-on-a-daily-basis.275733/page-75

He seemed to be looking for C turn to full trend blown trade until another C turn and sidelines for some laterals and other confusing C to C turns. I realize as I log and annotate, I sort of expect and notice when and where it starts getting messy. Although I have no idea how long a trend or retracements will last for me to take the full offer of the market yet, I'm starting to get a better feel for when 'not' to enter at my current stage. If anything I feel like less of an idiot for now. Hopefully I'll be able to carve the turns like a master some day.

Thanks again!
 
The automated labeling is progressing nicely.
Over the last couple days, PP2 is showing up in my debugging log, so I thought I'd post a couple of volume pics. PP2 is the "topic", differentiation is the purpose.

Comments/discussion please.

Pic 1 is fairly straight forward, -BUT- internal is supposed to kill PP2.
Pic 2 is more complex, with drastically different sequences, depending on path taken.

Thanks

PP2-1.jpg


PP2-2.jpg


Something else in my mind is EE-Ae which REQUIRES 2 consecutive T1's, followed with a HVBO. EE-Ae has no kills except in a Lat. Neither of the above qualify as EE-Ae or HVBO, but this is certainly a differentiation, for the warez, and I.

Thanks.
 
tiddlywinks said:
Comments/discussion please.
Pic 1 is fairly straight forward, -BUT- internal is supposed to kill PP2.
Pic 2 is more complex, with drastically different sequences, depending on path taken.

Something else in my mind is EE-Ae which REQUIRES 2 consecutive T1's, followed with a HVBO. EE-Ae has no kills except in a Lat. Neither of the above qualify as EE-Ae or HVBO, but this is certainly a differentiation, for the warez, and I.
More...

Pic1 - Internal/Wait only kill between elements for PP2. The pattern is T1-T1-P2 so Wait on bar before doesn't kill PP2. Though maybe 3 T1's after P1 kills it? Not sure.
Pic2 - P2-P2-T2P looks good for volume elements as PP2 get killed by 2 Wait's between elements.

EE-Ae has two versions: Ae-1 (P1-T1-T1-HVBO) and Ae-2 (P1-T1-T1-P2-HVBO). Ae-1 has no kills. Ae-2 only killed in Lat.

Personally I'm keeping EEs separately from volume elements as you can have multiple EEs on measurable bar/level.
 
Last edited:
Simples said:
Pic1 - Internal/Wait only kill between elements for PP2. The pattern is T1-T1-P2 so Wait on bar before doesn't kill PP2. Though maybe 3 T1's after P1 kills it? Not sure.
Pic2 - P2-P2-T2P looks good for volume elements as PP2 get killed by 2 Wait's between elements.

EE-Ae has two versions: Ae-1 (P1-T1-T1-HVBO) and Ae-2 (P1-T1-T1-P2-HVBO). Ae-1 has no kills. Ae-2 only killed in Lat.

Personally I'm keeping EEs separately from volume elements as you can have multiple EEs on measurable bar/level.
More...


Thanks @Simples

As I thought, as was programmed.
PP2 is a 3-piece consecutive sequence, T1-T1-P2. The P2 has upper(piece 1) and lower(piece 2) boundaries. A wait prior to piece 1 does not kill.

Thanks for the input!

fwiw,
I don't understand what you mean keeping EEs separate from volume elements. EE Identification requires VTP and the volume element identification. The whole thing is a structure... 10case-->VTP-->EE-->turn type-->trend type. Upper layers are dependent upon lower layers. Performing VTP and volume element identification is a standalone operation. EE identification, if desired, uses volume element identification. Oh well, however you do it, it seems to work!
 
Simples said:
Pic1 - Internal/Wait only kill between elements for PP2. The pattern is T1-T1-P2 so Wait on bar before doesn't kill PP2. Though maybe 3 T1's after P1 kills it? Not sure.
Pic2 - P2-P2-T2P looks good for volume elements as PP2 get killed by 2 Wait's between elements.

EE-Ae has two versions: Ae-1 (P1-T1-T1-HVBO) and Ae-2 (P1-T1-T1-P2-HVBO). Ae-1 has no kills. Ae-2 only killed in Lat.

Personally I'm keeping EEs separately from volume elements as you can have multiple EEs on measurable bar/level.
More...

3 T1s = PP6? So, that would rule out PP2. Hmm, so what happens when you have 2T1s then an internal and then another T1(T1-T1-W-T1)? Since, PP6 gets killed with internal.
 
NeedToLearn said:
3 T1s = PP6? So, that would rule out PP2. Hmm, so what happens when you have 2T1s then an internal and then another T1(T1-T1-W-T1)? Since, PP6 gets killed with internal.
More...

PP6 gets killed with Wait in between. Not sure if that kill-rule is different from PP2.
You fan on Wait. Can still get BO,T1 or BM,REV and on P2, you could get PP1b (from sheet), unless that rule require 3 bars.

Problem is exact ruleset and corner cases that are not described anywhere, though MADA and iterative refinement should help with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top