On 10-case geometry and beyond
- Thread starter Simples
- Start date
I just posted the evidence that you were bullshiting.Please, continue bullshitting those who don`t read, i could care less.
Transposing your logic on bar97 to bar93.
Bar93 is a P2>P1. At EOB, it's a P1 as per the volume element ranges. Most likely during RTH, I would have gone long off the low of bar93, fanned the tape on bar95 (maybe early reverse) and reversed short on bar96.
Bar95 was the crux bar. IV long didn't arrive. The path of least resistance continued short.
Comment in quote.
Edit: To add some content for Simples. EE PP4 and 5 deal specifically with OB. If the volume of the the OB must be measured, then by the definition of this method, it cannot be an INT. My perception only.
Last edited:
Ummm... P2 > P1 is not the same as T2P > P2.
More interesting, I don't see/agree on expecting Black IV... You cited Bar 89 as BOT1. Bar 93 is P2 or that sequence ended perhaps another failsafe, between Bar 89 and 93. This homey don't play dat fractal.
None of this matters. My previous writeup is representative of how I work.
Trade On!
Yes, it's what currently has my attention.
Jack's the real deal. He gave all the pieces and left each individual to 'glue' them together.
Some drills are prerequisites to understand some concepts. Paying it forward is a prerequisite to unlock other concepts. Drills build perception. Drills build capacity. Everything he did was by design, including his style of posting. There are logic locks that an individual must work through on their own effort, even with the best of intentions of other helpful and supportive traders paying it forward. There are some mistakes, omissions and errors that have to be sussed out.
If it were not for other earlier posters that engaged with him and asked the questions that they asked, (regardless of their degree of success with the methodology), the collective work would not have gotten as far as it did. If it were not for the incessant flaming derailing threads and taking them OT, it would have gotten much much farther. The work is adaptable and extensible. The infinite variety of pattern expression can be distilled into due-diligence tested principals.
Aha's! are individual in nature and self-realized. Any obstacles with learning the methodology is a function of an individual's pre-existing beliefs. Turning same obstacles into stepping stones require a suspension of dis-belief and DD towards doing work - both inner and outer. This is a holistic paradigm, thoughts and feelings are intertwined, if one is not experiencing support, comfort and confidence in their trading, there's more inner/outer work to do. As one gains facility and capacity, the positive feelings continue to grow as well as the bottomline. When one experiences the market as a endless stream of opportunity and abundance, there's really no going back and one wakes up eager for the day. Trading is fun!
More specifically, the EE to index cards demonstrates that for some things, pencil and paper computing is more conducive to forward progress than attempting to program software. The drill makes it easier to differentiate the relationship between n-1 and n EE's, turns and trend types.
It's difficult to realize without having built a resource of correctly annotated charts, logs and working through ID'ing EE's accurately. The index card drill is similar to a board game. The market deals the cards. The cards can be organized and color-coded by various categories and each can contain multiple permutations. ie. BO'T1's on IV, on DV, in the middle of trends, at the end of trend segments, etc,..
The shells of context have to be built from the ground up. As Jack has said, 'start with the FFF'
This was an earlier attempt at differentiation using d3.
As one combine cards, volume profiles of trends emerge.
Thanks for the question. I'm curious as to your realizations, if you are willing to share.
Agreed. First check for Repeat, then Rev-chron before advancing to Next. The second T1 in the form delayed the advancement of trend. Bar92 is the first P2. Bar93 is repeat AND since P2 > P1 is recycled as a P1. Without bar91 as second T1 in this bar series, bar92 would be the T1 repeat and bar93 would have triggered EE - Ae as true.
Edit: As I debriefed the above sequence, bar92 was a P2 in bwt two prior T1's which makes EE - PP2 as true. Therefore bar93 is P1 assigned.
This underscores the utility of the retro process. Whether it's invoked or not, the process works in the background to constantly check the validity of one's work.
Yes. The difference is in accelerating the RTL from bar82 pt1 to bar83. From there the RTL fans until bar89 which is a BO of this accelerated and fanned RTL. The RTL defined by bar81 and bar82 set up the initial tape, bar83 expanded that tape to form a FF. Bar84 is an FTP and wait which fans the RTL from a recycled bar82 pt3 (tape) into a pt1 (accelerated tape with bar83) on the low of bar82. Bar86 is a PP6. Bar87 is a P1 assigned. Bar88 a T1. Which brings us to Bar89 as BO,T1.
What I see you referring to is the channel set by bar81,82 tape. This tape expanded into a channel which bar90 and bar91 being on it's RTL and bar92 BO with IV short.
I appreciate your viewpoint on the discussion.
Last edited:
I appreciate the explanation Sprout.
But none of that dispels the fact that the original pts 1,2 (and subsequent pt 3 in the lateral) container that I wrote-up and would have traded, provided all the signals needed to come very close to the "full offer" of the container. Without constant sequence starts and ends, and the extra fishing fees/commissions. I consider most of the EE stuff "fishing". The OB EEs are exceptions, particularly if a 1,2,3 container has been fully established with matching gaussian.
Whatever works.
On some level, I think we have different definitions of what exactly the "full offer" is.
But none of that dispels the fact that the original pts 1,2 (and subsequent pt 3 in the lateral) container that I wrote-up and would have traded, provided all the signals needed to come very close to the "full offer" of the container. Without constant sequence starts and ends, and the extra fishing fees/commissions. I consider most of the EE stuff "fishing". The OB EEs are exceptions, particularly if a 1,2,3 container has been fully established with matching gaussian.
Whatever works.
On some level, I think we have different definitions of what exactly the "full offer" is.
Last edited:
The realization that I had was a simple one. End effects are fractal just as the price is. But not all end effects actually end the trend. The further down the volume bands you go the longer the sequences become.
Remarkable dedication! Good luck!