On 10-case geometry and beyond

[Sprout]

"Why is the obvious not so obvious" is a huge thread that I'm currently working through:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/why-is-the-obvious-not-so-obvious.151802/page-96#post-2398777

Here is an edited version to focus mainly on Jack's replies. There might be more in the thread but this seems to be the meat of what I could find.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Looking for a bit of input/confirmation or correction...

Topic is Laterals.

Ive been reworking the way I do lats. Up until recently, I've been applying Spyder's rules. As you know, Spyder and Jack differed in their MADA of Lats. Specifically of note is how each considered a lat to end. I won't go into that, other than a reminder that the channel/container method delivered by spyder, and the volume identification method as taught by Jack are different, while being completely correlated/connected.

Here are a couple snips from today. I'm applying Jacks method. The snips were manually annotated, not auto-annotated. Did I do them correct using Jacks methods?? Laterals is the topic, not specific volume identifications.

Thanks for looking.

 

[Simples]

Looking for a bit of input/confirmation or correction...

Topic is Laterals.

Ive been reworking the way I do lats. Up until recently, I've been applying Spyder's rules. As you know, Spyder and Jack differed in their MADA of Lats. Specifically of note is how each considered a lat to end. I won't go into that, other than a reminder that the channel/container method delivered by spyder, and the volume identification method as taught by Jack are different, while being completely correlated/connected.

Here are a couple snips from today. I'm applying Jacks method. The snips were manually annotated, not auto-annotated. Did I do them correct using Jacks methods?? Laterals is the topic, not specific volume identifications.

Thanks for looking.

Looks correct to me.
#1 is with full retro from Lat1 at Lat4, no Wait's.
#2 is with retro from Lat4 onwards though cancelled by BO, so Wait only on Lat2.

This is incidentally what I find hard about JH methodology. In real-time every piercing of Lat boundaries become potential BO. Same with RTL BO's. Not every BO is on IV, though many are.

 

[Sprout]

Looking for a bit of input/confirmation or correction...

Topic is Laterals.

Ive been reworking the way I do lats. Up until recently, I've been applying Spyder's rules. As you know, Spyder and Jack differed in their MADA of Lats. Specifically of note is how each considered a lat to end. I won't go into that, other than a reminder that the channel/container method delivered by spyder, and the volume identification method as taught by Jack are different, while being completely correlated/connected.

Here are a couple snips from today. I'm applying Jacks method. The snips were manually annotated, not auto-annotated. Did I do them correct using Jacks methods?? Laterals is the topic, not specific volume identifications.

Thanks for looking.

Both are accurate. The first pic has two sub lats within.
In you go with Jack, degapping is required.

An easier approach to degapping is to program bar color vs shifting historical bars. There is pro and cons and it’s a good bridge.

 

[Sprout]

Looks correct to me.
#1 is with full retro from Lat1 at Lat4, no Wait's.
#2 is with retro from Lat4 onwards though cancelled by BO, so Wait only on Lat2.

This is incidentally what I find hard about JH methodology. In real-time every piercing of Lat boundaries become potential BO. Same with RTL BO's. Not every BO is on IV, though many are.

Thus the two piles of EE’s; HVBO’s and LVBO’s.

The method does require a minimal display in addition to the 5m chart. At least the 30m both on one monitor side-by-side or max and min. The other has the trading platform of 2 OTR charts, a DOM ladder and two T&S streams.

It requires calibration and a PRV tool would certainly help.

If you are just looking at EOB volume without the support of the above, your observation is accurate.

For non-intraday trading, PVT is the way to go. That system is way easier to automate.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Thanks you both, @Simples and @Sprout.

Both are accurate. The first pic has two sub lats within. If you go with Jack, degapping is required.

De-gapping won't happen. Has nothing to do with difficulty. And I will be going with Jacks version of Laterals... It's easier AND makes more sense to me. By the way, if the snip was HL bars, and I said the snip was 5 minute bars, degapped, could you tell from the snip if it was truth or not? De-gapping won't happen.

This is incidentally what I find hard about JH methodology. In real-time every piercing of Lat boundaries become potential BO. Same with RTL BO's. Not every BO is on IV, though many are.

Once I learned that Lats were sub, and sub sub fractals, Lat BO was a non-issue as far as IV. I'm not (intentionally)trading sub and sub sub fractals. Much more important is the requirement for BOT1 and container method RTL BO. The BOT1 requirement IS the B2B or R2R in volume.

Thanks again gents.

Trade On!

 

[baro-san]

Looking for a bit of input/confirmation or correction...

Topic is Laterals.

Ive been reworking the way I do lats. Up until recently, I've been applying Spyder's rules. As you know, Spyder and Jack differed in their MADA of Lats. Specifically of note is how each considered a lat to end. I won't go into that, other than a reminder that the channel/container method delivered by spyder, and the volume identification method as taught by Jack are different, while being completely correlated/connected.

Here are a couple snips from today. I'm applying Jacks method. The snips were manually annotated, not auto-annotated. Did I do them correct using Jacks methods?? Laterals is the topic, not specific volume identifications.

Thanks for looking.

I believe this is closer to Jack's approach (what spydertrader called lateral formation):

 

[tiddlywinks]

I believe this is closer to Jack's approach (what spydertrader called lateral formation):

View attachment 191616

Nicely done @baro-san!

The whole enchilada... containers, gaussians, and volume identification!
That there... IS THE GOAL! Yes sir!

Thanks for the energizing post!!

 

[tiddlywinks]

baro-san's post re-opens (for me) the topic of de-gapping.
Given the example, would de-gapping "align" the 3 methods any more precisely?

The answer is binary. Game-changer or not.

 

[Sprout]

baro-san's post re-opens (for me) the topic of de-gapping.
Given the example, would de-gapping "align" the 3 methods any more precisely?

The answer is binary. Game-changer or not.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion and I’m not gonna beat a dead horse.

Whatever you choose will be true for you.

Degapping produces greater precision and clarity. I don’t exactly know why nor can explain it yet, it’s just a fact that someone has to verify for themselves or leave it aside for now.

If one can get themselves to the other side of the logical conundrum - ID’ing bars accurately in real-time, then the 2-3x the daily range comes into view not only as possible but attainable. Unless one is logging bar-by-bar, it’ll be difficult - at least it was for me.

You supplied some key material when I first ventured down this path, to which I’m eternally grateful so in a way I’m here to support your effort in whichever direction you want to go.

I just know for me, my asssimilation and proficiency of the material accelerated when I;
1) logged each bar
2) stopped inventing
3) followed directions
4) read what Jack actually said as opposed to what I thought he said

The man was a unrecognized genius at least to these local vocal idiots whom disparage him. He communicated perfectly to exclude money grubbers. There are logic lock’s in the material, perhaps I’m inventing but you yourself have had the aha experience.

Well those aha’s form a path to some AHA’s that are beyond words.

I don’t think that it’s possible for someone whom just takes bits and pieces of the material. It’s like studying multiple martial arts at once vs focusing on attaining a black belt in one. Sure one can get proficient quickly at self-defense but it’s all about the focus.

It takes a courageous commitment to invest in oneself to ‘see’ all his material as an interlocking system. It is indeed a system and it is one of the most beautiful things I’ve been blessed to witness and interact with. With my life experience, that’s an extremely high bar!

Most of my sharing is now done IRL with close friends, it’s about enjoying prosperity with friends and leaving the money grubbers to gnaw on discarded bones.

Btw, by not actively ignoring and blocking folks whom are set in their ignorant, arrogant, adolescent and rude ways will limit the pace of purposeful learning.

It’s like giving an extra seat to the hecklers in one’s internal dialogue, they love to be attention sponges and are great at being party poopers even though they think they are the life of the party. The yoke and joke is really on them.

I acknowledge that by using the best and most accurate words of description for the close-minded might appear as ad hominem attacks. This is unfortunate but we all have our limitations and our safe boundaries.

Yet sometimes it’s better to get something out of one’s life if there’s no enjoyment of it being here.

Detoxing is good !!

pps none of this will work if you are a Trump supporter, a racist, a misogynist or advocate the destruction of our environment.
sorry, not sorry.