My post was meant to be helpful, not to add to anybody's frustrations.
On 10-case geometry and beyond
- Thread starter Simples
- Start date
My post was meant to be helpful, not to add to anybody's frustrations.
Thank you @Sprout...
Most welcome @tiddlywinks, glad to help.
Bar-by-bar commentary is an extremely effective way for MY learning and knowledge development. I've printed your post along with my attachment and will study it. I love Aha moments!! I appreciate your time and effort taken in the post.
There are 2 aspects of JHM 2.0 that have always confused me, and make it very difficult (for me) to deploy MADA **AND** ACTUAL TRADING, IN REAL-TIME.
1) JHM 1.0/1.5 states, and is included in the teachings of JH and ST, that volume dictates what the container is. To me, JHM 2.0 is tuned to sub-fractals, evidenced by EEs, elimination of visual containers and many times elimination of at least one level of gaussian. Yet, 3 levels of containers continues to be prescribed for optimum performance. Still, 2.0 lesson charts seldom, if ever, describe containers, show where trades were entered or exited (JH said usually 30-40 trades a day... 2.0 suggests many of those would be sub-fractal, akin to something I call fishing), and leave the student hanging to carryover 3 levels of undescribed containers, when to do (or not) degapping, and of course do MADA in real-time and trade!
Yes, you bring up very good points. I’ve approached it as building. Even though a foundation is necessary, it’s rarely the first thing one sees in a house, yet it’s presence and utility exist, and has a place in the sequence of events that end with a finished structure.
As a point of clarification, my interpretation of what you mean by sub-fractals are what I would define as the fast fractal tapes. The ones where 2 or more bars are contained in the parallelogram and the RTL is not crossed over. As you know, these fast fractals can expand through fanning of the RTL as a succession of IB’s form a lateral as per the gaussian formations of the ‘pattern’ or accelerate with increasing volume to increase the slope of the RTL and expand the channel.
For me sub-fractals are formations that occur within a lateral.
It’s true that the containers aren’t explicitly annotated with 2.0 on the 5min per Jack’s charts, only the RTL’s are. The chart that I haven’t posted that follows the 1.0 are multi-timeframe one’s such as the 30min, D, W. which are used in parallel with the 5min. This is where I annotate the containers and build the three nested fractals.
My charting platform is about to implement drawing layers by which having the ability to toggled on/off overlays will assist in clarifying this multi-timeframe relationship.
It was only by mapping 2.0 onto a slower timeframe where the modrian table started to make sense for me in how EE’s were pieced together. In other words say 2 trending 30min bars (XB) being composed of 12 5min bars where 3 EE’s (and 3 ftt’s) leads to the Trading Fractal FTT. These fast fractals I see as trend segments of the Trading fractal’s Trend.
The assigned P1’s are like a proof. When the bars are ID’d correctly, the assigned P1’s are a heads up that we just had an ftt and that a turn is up on the next bar. When this is witnessed consistently, it further demonstrates the strength and integrity of the method. I’m pretty much in constant awe that any human being was able to figure this out on the basis of logic and reasoning.
There are times when my volume bar annotations do not conform to the gaussian formations in the pattern. When this is the case, frequently I’m ‘offset’ by a peak in the ‘pattern’. What I thought was a P1 is actually a P2 therefore the ftt is coming sooner than I expect. The rev chron and retro process in the VTP supported this particular differentiation. Also frequently, the start of this ‘offset’ was a IBGS, which can be seen easier when one monitors like you on a faster timescale than the 5min.
It terms of performing MADA and trading, especially as it relates to 2.0, I believe it’s a function of practice. (at first by NOT trading simultaneously). For me, it was just too difficult, I’d always be a several bars away from the currently building bar. I hadn’t built my capacity. Now, what seemed like an impossible task, I can do just as Jack describes with plenty of time during the formation of a 5min bar.
2) PRV and pace are critical with the absence of the mentioned visuals. In reality, in real-time, PRV must be witnessed, and is only applicable to time-based bars, while pace is usually benchmarked on a dataset of several days or longer, but has some flexibility since it can be imposed on a predefined, or a dynamic look-back period of volume.
I have a proprietary tool I call the pace needle. It deals with PRV on my trading chart. I'm writing a new tool to draw pace levels (regardless of time frame) and to also provide the associated pricebar volatility. Think of the Volume/Volatility data that Mak put together. My point is... the visuals, the containers and gaussians in JHM 1.0/1.5 are geared to real-time trading, PRV and Pace are "finer tools". The visuals once learned, are generally simple to annotate for later analysis. For the most part, the PRV and Pace must me analyzed in real-time to be useful. Not always correct annotations is part of what makes life fun, imo.
I wholeheartedly agree and a bit envious. That’s one of the main drawbacks of my charting platform - the ability to code up a real-time PRV tool. As you are well aware, the ‘feeling’ of pace change is very supportive of ‘knowing that you know’ WMCN.
Since I use fast charts most days, sub 5 minute, 2 minute my primary, the visuals, coupled with my on-demand knowledge/usage of what I see going, works pretty well in real-time. Sub fractals seem much more MADA intensive, geared for the slower yet still considered fast time frames. JMO.
That’s great!
My experience with fast charts is only in monitoring the 2min YM as leading the 5min ES.
I can definitely relate is wanting to take the market’s offer at the earliest possible point of perception, which being ‘inside’ a bar can provide.
Thanks again Sprout.
You are most welcome.
I’d like to acknowledge my role in interrupting the previous momentum in this thread a while back. I was rude and presumptuous toward you with some arrogance mixed in. My apologies.
What you say is true, that gaussian formations must complete and that Jack did indeed say that. Thank you for referencing the ‘rubber meets the road' thread I’ve been enjoying it! Also, I want to thank you for your input on my path for I would not be where I am now without it, so thanks!!
BTW... pretty clear what today's (2/23/18) open was... our analysis differs a little but we arrived at the same place... I hinted the 12:45 bar was an ftt.
You are pointing to what I consider to be one of the compelling characteristics of JH and ST's work, the power of a cooperative and collaborate group to move everyone's thinking and understanding forward. I appreciative being able to contribute to forward this knowledge.
Comments within quoted text.
Attached; Jack on Trading is Building,...
It's my understanding that the process begins by building the fastest fractal first which starts at the price cases.
Would you expand on what you are perceiving that is making this current iteration of transference more challenging than it needs to be?
I agree with building up from 2 bar tapes, and using the cases, and recommend it.
I'm recommending against using, for learning, other setup than 5 min ES, trading on prv, trading fractals that aren't clearly backed by volume, ftt, dominance.
Ok, having separate color for stictches now.
Not sure how people make bar annotations, but my experience with NT is that it doesn't play nice across different timeframes, scaling/zoom-levels and the vectors tend to get jumbled up after loading new bars etc. So something automatic would be nice. Maybe there's something standard people uses?
The high number is really just because there's lots of bars in the dataseries. So what I can do is just start counting from where I start analysis, and not show anything prior to that. Could be an interesting feature to try out anyways. These are with original bar numbers (starting analysis at bar #1):
The first channel is just fanned out from bar #2-3 (pt1 and pt2 bar #2, pt3 bar #3) and includes all trendsegments until short trend at bar #13, which is also fanned out.
What does your theory say about the direction of future prices if one bar is taller than the combined height of the 10 bears before it?
Jack Hershey's futures method considers that information irrelevant.
Started using bookmarks, price cases that make money and fastest fractal:
Annotating at the bar of detection, and mostly not redrawing too much, so this is very near to how it would look in realtime, except some differences during bar evolution. Annotation text providing some context.
Annotating at the bar of detection, and mostly not redrawing too much, so this is very near to how it would look in realtime, except some differences during bar evolution. Annotation text providing some context.
I apologize in advance. I've had some success in trading, but I always find the devil is in where your theory transfers into execution. What actual vehicle are you using to translate all this into a trade ?