On 10-case geometry and beyond

[JamesRoscoe]

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.

View attachment 187153


Thanks for the question. I'm curious as to your realizations, if you are willing to share.

I have read the Fractal Redux thread where you started.

The price cases coming out like the pyramid of Giza was very interesting. I also saw that Heroic was showing how the failsafes in a tight range can spell disaster.

Here is where I think some of Jacks other tools like volume pace come into play.

When the market starts to slide into CCC I would stop moving bookmarks.

BOT1 also says to me that volatility has gone away and it might be a good time to use the Modrian table to confirm a C turn, otherwise hold thru.

For me, I think that Jack built this system to keep traders from drifting.

It is there to keep the mind, sharp and engaged.

The act of logging keeps you actively in the moment and mapping out the future of WMCN.

The EE in my mind are a series of real time drills designed to keep the trader looking left to maintain context.

So when I see an EE I just perk up, as it might be time to take some candy from the baby.

If the EE produces a price turn, then I will look at the MRT to find out WMCN to make me click the mouse. It becomes automatic after awhile.

For me it is all about thinking in pairs and triads.

As I mentioned earlier when I realized that I could make some money anytime I wanted, my ambition to be in a big house at the top the hill just disintegrated.

I can see that you are a deeply spiritual man. What Jack wanted in my view is for the trader to experience the final AHA.

The final AHA is to realize that with a bit of focused study, the markets will give you whatever you want.

When that happens, you begin to realize that a lot of what you wanted you did not need.

I do not use JH exclusively.

What happened is that I mastered another CW technique as Jack would call it, and this teacher already read price bar by bar. So, these days I operate with complete data sets. I definitely owe that to Jack.

I am very very happy to return here and find that the Pattern is still being discussed, and that a new generation of traders are willing to take the trip to facility.

 

[Sprout]

I appreciate the explanation Sprout.

Whatever works.
On some level, I think we have different definitions of what exactly the "full offer" is.

We might, here's my current operating definition and what I'm working to accomplish.

 

[tiddlywinks]

With all the EE talk in another thread, I decided to annotate the 2m RTY for the last hour or so.
Maybe I got 'em labeled correct, maybe not, likely missed a few too. And actionable/trade-able it was!! Just thought I'd share.
Always learning.

6/22/18, RTYU8, 2 minute bars

 

[Simples]

With all the EE talk in another thread, I decided to annotate the 2m RTY for the last hour or so.
Maybe I got 'em labeled correct, maybe not, likely missed a few too. And actionable/trade-able it was!! Just thought I'd share.
Always learning.

6/22/18, RTYU8, 2 minute bars
View attachment 187606

Appreciate your insights and doubts as well, and skill

 

[tiddlywinks]

Always learning.

One of the things I "remembered" as I was working with EE's is the disconnect with gaussians. That is to say, they are 2 distinct, yet completely intertwined tools. Following the VTP bouncing ball is mandatory, and afaik, the only way to connect the two. Even then, lop-siding towards a favorite, whether through need, desire, comfort, lack, or laziness, is extremely simple to do. It's a conundrum for me. Decoupling my necessity of (mostly)strict adherence to matching gaussians is difficult for me. Some people think I take on Spyder's techniques. Truth is I gleaned most gaussian and point 1,2,3 stuff from/through Mak!

 

[tiddlywinks]

Debrief of todays EE stuff...

 

[JamesRoscoe]

Appreciate your insights and doubts as well, and skill

@tiddlywinks. There is a definite disconnect with Gaussians. What I noticed upon my return is that it appears that Jack was very heavily influenced by Al Brooks. What Jack then did was to create a volume profile that was "bar by bar". Al Brooks is the first prominent educator to start the bar by bar stuff. I find that the two methods compliment each other quite well. It takes much more work to do volume bar by bar. I have observed however that Jack adopted the idea that market events occur in threes. The market is a waltz. So it become easy to spot on a chart three occurrences of volume whether rising, falling or in between elements. Then Jack moves on the volume bands, where the vast majority of EE's occur on a breech of one or more of the bands, and a few instances where the market falls below T1 (VDU). Those are my aha moments which came from logging. What I find myself doing is checking the dependent variable and then looking to see if the independent variable supports what the independent variable should be doing. If it is not doing what it should be, then this a flaw.

 

[Sprout]

@tiddlywinks. There is a definite disconnect with Gaussians. What I noticed upon my return is that it appears that Jack was very heavily influenced by Al Brooks. What Jack then did was to create a volume profile that was "bar by bar". Al Brooks is the first prominent educator to start the bar by bar stuff. I find that the two methods compliment each other quite well. It takes much more work to do volume bar by bar. I have observed however that Jack adopted the idea that market events occur in threes. The market is a waltz. So it become easy to spot on a chart three occurrences of volume whether rising, falling or in between elements. Then Jack moves on the volume bands, where the vast majority of EE's occur on a breech of one or more of the bands, and a few instances where the market falls below T1 (VDU). Those are my aha moments which came from logging. What I find myself doing is checking the dependent variable and then looking to see if the independent variable supports what the independent variable should be doing. If it is not doing what it should be, then this a flaw.

Al Brooks started trading on Oct 19th, 1987. His first published work was in 2009.

Jack Hershey starting trading right out of college in 1957. His first post (that I've found) in misc.invest.futures was 10/23/98. His first post on ET was 2/9/2003.

When Al starting trading, Jack had been successful at it for 30yrs.


If there is any common root, age and experience bias plus logic dictates that it would be the opposite from your conclusion.

However they both cite Edwards & Magee's classic "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends v5" as a influential reference.


As for volume gaussians, for me it is useful to think in terms of degrees of "coupling" - at various TL's of price.


ymmv

 

[tiddlywinks]

Question about EE-Ab, for the group

@tiddlywinks. There is a definite disconnect with Gaussians. What I noticed upon my return is that it appears that Jack was very heavily influenced by Al Brooks. What Jack then did was to create a volume profile that was "bar by bar". Al Brooks is the first prominent educator to start the bar by bar stuff. I find that the two methods compliment each other quite well. It takes much more work to do volume bar by bar. I have observed however that Jack adopted the idea that market events occur in threes. The market is a waltz. So it become easy to spot on a chart three occurrences of volume whether rising, falling or in between elements. Then Jack moves on the volume bands, where the vast majority of EE's occur on a breech of one or more of the bands, and a few instances where the market falls below T1 (VDU). Those are my aha moments which came from logging. What I find myself doing is checking the dependent variable and then looking to see if the independent variable supports what the independent variable should be doing. If it is not doing what it should be, then this a flaw.

I'm getting more "comfortable" with the EE stuff. It's actually kinda fun. Messy and quite confusing sometimes, mostly due to failsafes imo, but engaging, proactive, and... fun! I've learned a lot just since last friday! As Jack said... weekends have a purpose. My weekend aha is the EEs are for segments... huge, HUGE aha, FOR ME!!

As for Brooks, I have his books. I read them. Meh. I'm pretty sure my Brooks reading came AFTER i spent time learning and trading with VSA (Volume Spread Analysis). Which explains my indifference to Brooks. Idk if Brooks or VSA was first to market. VSA was and still is worthwhile, very much so!

In an experiment to get away from Gaussians directly, but keeping a strong adherence to them, Im doing the exact opposite of you... I look at the independent, and see what the dependent is doing... Volume leads price, always! Volume tells you, mandates, what you have geometrically.

Thanks

 

[JamesRoscoe]

Al Brooks started trading on Oct 19th, 1987. His first published work was in 2009.

Jack Hershey starting trading right out of college in 1957. His first post (that I've found) in misc.invest.futures was 10/23/98. His first post on ET was 2/9/2003.

When Al starting trading, Jack had been successful at it for 30yrs.


If there is any common root, age and experience bias plus logic dictates that it would be the opposite from your conclusion.

However they both cite Edwards & Magee's classic "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends v5" as a influential reference.


As for volume gaussians, for me it is useful to think in terms of degrees of "coupling" - at various TL's of price.


ymmv

My only argument to this is that if you look at the posts, his trading seems to have evolved significantly since 2003. The bar by bar analysis popped up around 2010 and was refined by 2013, so there was definitely something that made him change something for whatever reason. Both interesting reading for those who can get through it.