On 10-case geometry and beyond

Firstly, let me say that I have already seen what the market has been doing overnight... it's down in premarket. Therefore, my analysis should be considered hindsight. OTOH, I will tell you I would not have seen this as a tradable ftt. In fact I see it is a "no change" and here's why.

Lets define the container I see... pt1 on the 13th, pt2 on the 19th and pt3 on the 21st. Call it whatever you want, a tape, traverse, chubby tape, channel, goat, chicken, whatever, that's the container I am seeing/using. I also see the sequence completed on the 26th, which means I am looking for a signal of change, such as ftt and/or another ending signal.

The 29th is NOT ftt. If there is an ftt it is the 28th. And that is based on volume. Volume dictates what you have. Always! The 29th is OB, meaning there are 2 pieces of sequence. So if the 28th was ftt, aka pt1 of a new container, the OB negates it. In this analysis, the high of the OB would be pt2. But since the the low of the OB is beyond the pt1, that can not possibly be pt1. So in the micro view, how I would trade it... there has been no ftt, and the OB is not even a rtl touch. It is no change.

Additionally, something I don't use to any useful extent are the early ends. OB by itself can be an ending of a sequence PP4, PP4a, and PP5. @Sprout is the expert in use of the early ends and notating such. Again, I see the 29th as a "no change" on your chart.

HTH?
 
tiddlywinks said:
Firstly, let me say that I have already seen what the market has been doing overnight... it's down in premarket. Therefore, my analysis should be considered hindsight. OTOH, I will tell you I would not have seen this as a tradable ftt. In fact I see it is a "no change" and here's why.

Lets define the container I see... pt1 on the 13th, pt2 on the 19th and pt3 on the 21st. Call it whatever you want, a tape, traverse, chubby tape, channel, goat, chicken, whatever, that's the container I am seeing/using. I also see the sequence completed on the 26th, which means I am looking for a signal of change, such as ftt and/or another ending signal.

The 29th is NOT ftt. If there is an ftt it is the 28th. And that is based on volume. Volume dictates what you have. Always! The 29th is OB, meaning there are 2 pieces of sequence. So if the 28th was ftt, aka pt1 of a new container, the OB negates it. In this analysis, the high of the OB would be pt2. But since the the low of the OB is beyond the pt1, that can not possibly be pt1. So in the micro view, how I would trade it... there has been no ftt, and the OB is not even a rtl touch. It is no change.

Additionally, something I don't use to any useful extent are the early ends. OB by itself can be an ending of a sequence PP4, PP4a, and PP5. @Sprout is the expert in use of the early ends and notating such. Again, I see the 29th as a "no change" on your chart.

HTH?
More...


@tiddlywinks - I see similar things.

Normally, you would be right about the 29th OB. The thing that makes this false in this case is the prior bar is an Ag vebo. The sequence, P1 < P2 < P1 is an Ag volatility expansion break out, Being A band, that very bar is assigned P1 in volume in the final sequence of events. The 29th then becomes a T1 relative to Ag's bar height. The RTL short fans as a new pt3 for this OB's bar's high.

Since this OB's volume is a T1, then the OB is not in the class of an End Effect, End Event, Early Ends, etc,... there might be nuances between them but I generally see them as End Events in the Operating Order of Events. It still has two events applied to it and moves the trend forward in the OOE. It's just not an EE that assigns a P1 to the next bar signaling change and a turn. It's a T1/P2 which moves the non-Dom trend forward. We have Dom to non-Dom. We're anticipating a return to Dominance vs a change in Dominance. Depends who wants to participate at market open. The sequence unless interrupted is bias toward another ve short with increasing volume with decreasing price.

If the prior bar was in another band (B-K) not A band, then yes this bar would be the P1 with a bias toward the opposite channel direction (long) with the next bar's (either P1 of T1) logical geometric pt3 of the new trend direction. This could be in the opposite direction (long) or an accelerated channel in our current Dom (short) leading to channel expansion short. Vector based, always binary.

@Simples Having arrows and text box's above the C turns Dom to Dom (C,D-D) bars would support building the sport's memory associations. Each element of the 17 leading indicators of price have a place in the dataset of continue/change with one element tipping the balance as an early signal. This is the decreasing volume non-Dominant movement where the price change is in the shadow of the bar. The shadow of the bar is between the doji and the respective high or low where price is retracing. It's in contrast to what the form and color of the bar are revealing.
It's

Performing realtime MADA is definitely in the flow of the moment, SCT is highly tuned to changes in volume pace. Active annotating and logging makes the difference, it's the fast path to confidence, support and clarity. As well as an increase in capacity. Processing time has progressively shorten in time via a self-correcting and self-healing conscious/subconscious process. Always


If terms of a bar-by-bar debrief this is what I see, the price cases are already labeled by the bars. @Simples What's missing are the larger fractal containers to 'nest' the existing channels. It's where one zooms out on the drone and see's the forest more than the trees. The pattern is Dom/non-Dom/Dom. Binary


bar69 BO,T1 Failsafe, pt1 long, BM long
bar70 fan new pt3, T1
bar71 fan, P2
bar72 accelerate, T2P
bar73 Bc EE
bar74 BM pt1, P1
bar75 OB, PP4
bar76 P1 assigned
bar77 PP4 EE, BM,rev Failsafe, P1 assigned
bar78 P1 assigned
bar79 BO,T1 Failsafe of bar68 pt1, bar77, pt3 (bar71,77 return to Dominance with increasing volume)
bar80 P1
bar81 PP1 EE
bar82 P1 assigned, pt3 long, ftt short, BM long
bar83 T1
bar84 FTP, wait
bar85 T1, new pt3 long
bar86 PP6 EE
bar87 fan new pt3 long, P1 assigned
bar88 T1
bar89 ve short, BM,rev Failsafe, P1 assigned, BM short
bar90 T1
bar91 T1
bar92 P2
bar93 Ad hvbo EE, P1 assigned, BM long
bar94 wait
bar95 T1, new pt3 short
bar96 BO,T1 Failsafe, P1 assigned, BM short
bar97 P1, ve short
bar98 T1
bar99 P2, ve short
bar100 Ag vebo EE, P1 assigned
bar101 T1, BM long, RTL long established for nonDom traverse. Up to four bars anticipated before resume short.

Anticipate increasing long volume with increasing price within first four bars for new channel long, if FBO of above RTL long reverse short on increasing short volume. if decreasing volume and increasing price, hold long until increasing short volume. if BO of this RTL long, reverse short, fan channel short with new pt3.

If tomorrow's nyc open above today's close, prv long, BM long
If tomorrow's nyc open below today's close, prv short, BO below bar101 low, BM,rev, BM short
 
Last edited:
@Sprout , for an Ag sequence P2 needs to exceed P1, THEN another P1 occurs. Bar99 isn't greater than current P1 of Bar 97.. hence no Ag and tiddlywinks is right that at EOB Bar101 is a short.

Also if you want to follow the letter of the law, look closer and draw the RTL from Bar 96 to Bar 97 and note that Bar 98 closes outside.. making it BO T1 for a long. Bar 99 is a BM REV short; Bar 100 is another P1.

Either way our OB is getting assigned P1 Long from the BO of the RTL from Bar99 to Bar100 and turning into PP4 short from being an OB.

--

Academics aside; jack never suggested or even alluded to using RDBMS on a larger TF like the daily. He did advise add the 30m to his 5m system later on, but only used that for trendlines and completely disregarded volume even at the 30m level. Gaussians and the sequence apply everywhere of course, but he specifically mined 5m data in order to make all of his end effects and the consistency of relative volume during intraday 5m plays a bigger part into RDBMS. It's hard enough making that system work and when you start taking it out of the context he recommended it be used for it's going to get even harder, just FYI.

At the end of the day we need to realize that RDBMS was a work in progress up to the day jack passed away. It was supposed to make transference easier but he kept modifying it up until his last posts because imo he kept running into the problem that his expertise relied so much on the vast depth of intuitive trading experience in his mind and no written system can effectively transfer that.

For any learners out there, even you Simples, I'd pay really close attention to the guys like @baro-san and @tiddlywinks who have found a way to make this work for themselves.. and forget all of the complexities around these systems. I've wasted so many hours myself bogged in the details and nothing ever came of it. I've got hundreds of posts at least written on the method and 90% of them feel largely useless with the benefit of hindsight.
 
It's pretty interesting... 2 completely different views, with basically the same outcome. Mine a simple "no change" (continue short), and yours anticipating a return to dominance (short). This was a good example of sub-fractals and how they affect the game. I like my analysis better!! LOL. I understand the T1/P2 and the non-eligibility of the OB to be an EE, but a new pt3 on the OB high?...Ehhh. I learned a long long time ago not to get hung up on any set of bars, historic or real-time. :)

Thanks again for your input @Sprout. And the bar-by-bar listing!
Viva Ag VEBO!!


Here's some verbiage from Jack about Ag VEBO...

Ag VEBO

No typo.

You are tooling along.

You get to P2 one way or another (carte blanche).....

Check out that P2 is > P1.

So after P2 consider seeing a P1 or a T2P.

IF a P1 then designate the bar as Ag VEBO.

This could be a bar where a UL is "on the row". Just saying.....
 
llIHeroic said:
Academics aside; jack never suggested or even alluded to using RDBMS on a larger TF like the daily. He did advise add the 30m to his 5m system later on, but only used that for trendlines and completely disregarded volume even at the 30m level. Gaussians and the sequence apply everywhere of course, but he specifically mined 5m data in order to make all of his end effects and the consistency of relative volume during intraday 5m plays a bigger part into RDBMS.
More...

Never thought about it much, but that makes perfect sense. Jack always referred to time-based charts as "bundles of information". And we all know sub-fractals exist within those bundles... hell, each trade by itself is technically a bundle. The longer the bar duration, the more sub-fractals, dozens, 100's, even more... next to impossible to annotate, impossible to manually trade.

Oddly, this makes me feel good. One of my inventions seen in some of my postings is use of a fast TF to "track" and annotate guassians of much bigger/wider/slower containers. Information that I (and I believe most/many others) find difficult, confusing, very subjective, and dissuading to do using slower TF bundles.

This also sort of explains my "dislike" of the use of Early Ends... In my work, most times, EE's involve sub-fractals. And while one can certainly make the case that all "change" occurs first within a sub-fractal, it is much simpler for me to determine the change successfully, on the sequence of whatever fractal I think I am trading. LOL.
 
Last edited:
tiddlywinks said:
Damn...

Hero! how are you my friend?
More...

Hey! I never know where to begin answering that one.. all things considered pretty good though. Have a lot to be grateful for.

I still love this trading stuff... feel like I was really close to getting off the ground with it around the time we were talking frequently, late 2016 was it? But then my head wasn't in the best of places for trading for some time.. that and other things kept me away from the markets for a while. Starting to get interested again in picking up where I left off but not sure if that will materialize into anything as of yet.

With hindsight I can see I've never done a good enough job creating the brain-space and life circumstances to give trading the completely focused attention I need to in order to succeed with it and maintain consistency over the longer term. One thing I've been pretty absorbed in is putting a string of RE acquisitions together over the past year. I'm coming up to about 50% of my family's monthly overhead being covered by the what's left after all fixed expenses and contribution to reserves for est. future vacancy/maintenance has been paid.

Maybe if I can get over that bar it will be a logical point to re-arrange things and take another serious crack at this stuff. It's a pleasure to come back on here and see you're still active and seemingly doing quite well.
 
Progression using coloured boxes for C-turns. Still only tape-level annotations/perspective, though all the comments about slower fractals very much appreciated!

qqq-2018-04-03.png
 
llIHeroic said:
@Sprout , for an Ag sequence P2 needs to exceed P1, THEN another P1 occurs. Bar99 isn't greater than current P1 of Bar 97.. hence no Ag and tiddlywinks is right that at EOB Bar101 is a short.

Also if you want to follow the letter of the law, look closer and draw the RTL from Bar 96 to Bar 97 and note that Bar 98 closes outside.. making it BO T1 for a long. Bar 99 is a BM REV short; Bar 100 is another P1.

Either way our OB is getting assigned P1 Long from the BO of the RTL from Bar99 to Bar100 and turning into PP4 short from being an OB.
More...


My mistake, the Ag is an Ad.

Yes, the sequence can be described as you say with Bar99 as a BM rev short, bar100 as P1, bar101 can be assigned a BO,T1. The fact that it's occurring in a dominant traverse that is expanding the short channel which in my experience links BO,T1's to each other as trend segments are pieced together. What I started to do after noticing how many sequential Failsafes were in my log, I look to recycle pt1's and new pt3's to make an expanded container from accelerated dominant traverses. In this sequence the BO,T1 and the BM,rev 'cancel' each other since they are describing a change in dominance twice.

Bar96 is the pt1 and Bar99 is the new pt3 for the expanded dominant short traverse. Using bar99 as a P1 then makes it's high as the most relevant point to begin fanning a container.

@tiddlywinks, I frequently come across multiple possible sequences.

For example, the above can be sequenced like the following which makes bar101 an assigned P1.

bar89 pt1,
bar93 new pt3
bar94 wait
bar95 T2P, lat2, new pt3
bar96 T2P, lat3, new pt3
bar97 T2P ->PP1c, B-Turn
bar98 P1 assigned
bar99 P1, ve
bar100 P1 ->PP1, ftt
bar101 P1 assigned->PP4
bar102 P1 assigned

In this sequence bar93 is not ID'd as an Ad EE and the trend advances to T2P.

Trend segments can 'fit' on the 'pattern' P1-T1-P2-T2-P3 offset by a peak/trough. These variations synch at certain P1's - the P1's associated with FTT's of Trading Fractals and not ftt's of the Fast Fractals. C-turns help clear the slate provided that they are not followed by the opposing C.

Even though P1's are assigned at the end/beginning of profit-taking segments, the following bar's pt3 is necessary to confirm direction of the next segment.

It all gets clear in the log though, which by design has a bar-by-bar result.

Having assigned P1's show up at turning points constantly validates Jack's work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top