On 10-case geometry and beyond

[NeedToLearn]

I've actually wondered about those bookmarks. My thoughts initially were that we take profit on all EE's. On P1's (A-bands and FS) we reverse immediately. Other EE's we wait for the next bar to determine where it closes relative to BM (it will be P1 even if we have BM reverse anyway) and enter.

Another thought was, once the segment ends, change will come in either trend direction and/or volatility so we get a new RTL in one form or another.

Hmm... does that mean for every segment, we can anticipate the range close to the tick?

Learning this for me is a constant fluctuation between eureka and headaches. Almost feel biploar.

 

[Sprout]

Yup, this is the OB confusion I mentioned in an earlier post.

My take regarding your OB question... Regardless of volume, once OB has locked in, it is measurable. As annotated, with no analysis as to correctness/accurateness of preceding ID's, the OB is of a T1/P2 nature. Therefore, the OB, as an OB, IS NOT an EE. The fact the EOB volume was annotated as P2 does not alter the T1/P2 nature of the OB.

For an OB to lock in, the opposing XR,StR or XB,StB must have be a WCB. This means that volume was being measured prior to the OB coming into existence. The caveat are OB's within a lateral. Where the OB occurs in the OOE does make a difference as you suggest, which is why there is a different OB EE for each of these zones.


IMO, volume DOES NOT DETERMINE the type/nature of the OB. The sequence is the sequence. The OB volume does not "alter" the type/nature of OB. Where the OB is occurring within the annotated sequence determines what the 2 levels of the OB are.

It does. Just as you previously suggested, a T1 on the upper level at EOB volume is distinctly different from T1 at beginning of an XR bar transforming into an OB with increasing volume.


Sprout mentioned 2 things in previous posts to my questions...

1) The mention/idea that "students" annotated Jacks charts. I never thought of that! That does explain inconsistencies on Jacks charts, IMO.

In the context of getting trading rooms up and running, the first clue was noticing a variety of logs in different handwriting, then noticing stylistic differences in the charts.

Comments with quoted text.

 

[Sprout]

The intra bar stuff is so confusing....

I tried replays with reversing on every EE for few different dates. Either used eob or stop orders several ticks away from BM and RTL. It ended with about 10 points positive on those replays. It was kind of interesting to see that the result was similar in a large trending day (about 30 point range) and a smaller range (18 points or so). Using eob seems to work okay when there is decent volume but when volume is hovering around DU or VDU, using eob seems to put the early morning profits back in the grinder lol.

This is accurate and actionable. The action depends on skill. There are times even an advanced expert would sideline.


It also gets really confusing to annotate there as well. I may not be logging them correctly as well. Regardless, although it was profitable there were some big drawdowns in between, so only using eob and EE is probably not the expert way to do this.

Counterintuitively, this is the area where EOB is more important for ID'ing. It's a different matter in terms of "carving turns". One doesn't wait for EOB ID for carving turns. Sweeping through DOM, OTR charts, T&S are more supportive of carving.


Does the 4 trend types and 30m bar sentiments etc. have a say in execution? When should If 1 If 2 APA be utilized?

Yes, they are quite fundamental in market system of operation and reducing CW feelings of unknowing.

If1/If2 APA is a drill that BM,rev and BO,T1 are refinements of. The drill itself is very useful to do and works like an overlay and/or background process.


Actually, most important of all, when should I be sidelining? Do you guys trade through VDU? I was under the impression that Jack avoided lunch hours because it usually doesn't give a lot of trades and increases risk. It certainly is getting dry after 12 these days.

Comments within quoted text.

Make the index cards and print the Essence flowchart. Play it like a board game as you review Jack's charts where he has trade actions articulated.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/sctlearning-from-scratch.282221/page-14#post-3964794

 

[Sprout]

Thanks!

So, in this case, I would need to watch volume as price bar forms and make note of whether it was higher or lower volume before bar formation changed. In this case the OB gave us a t1 then bo,t1 as it formed OB so we can assign a new P1 here. Seems to make sense.

Yes, WCB and WMCN are entwined in the now. Sometimes with OB's, dropping into the faster timescale to "see inside" the OB provides some clarity. Just as rising up into the slower timeframe provides greater clarity on trend turning points.

 

[Sprout]

I have some confusion regarding trend types and the use of modrian tables too. Which bar tells you the turn type for starters. Is it the EE bar? PP1 should always be dominant turn in that case? What if you get a PP1 and then a BM reverse right after with a lower volume than the last bar? Is that a dominant to nonDom?

To start a turn type, find an obvious change in trend Dominance. A c turn is Dom to Dom. It's easier to find the FS turns. The Modrian is divided into 4 columns of Set's. Within each Set are two columns; n-1 and n. The present bar is n-1. In the Modrian table, starting at the leftmost column, one will see the FS listed in the yellow cell in the n-1 column. This is where now is. At n-1, for a BO,T1 there are 9 possible EE's that are c turns. All these EE's have volume bar profiles. One after another, each of these EE's are no longer possible, until what remains is the path of least resistance and the final EE presents at EOB after the trend segment completes.

MADA continues until the next EE. If it's on this list of 9 possible EE's then it's another c turn and part of Set A with certainty. If it's not on this list, then it has failed as a c turn and moves the trend forward into being an a turn.

Let's say this EE at n was another BO,T1. It's listed and annotated as a c turn. This EE on the next bar now becomes the n-1. C turns are at the end and beginning of trends.

If this EE at n was another BM,rev, then one see's that it's not listed as a c turn and therefore fails the test. Test failure, moves the trend cycle forward. This EE is ID'd as an a turn. However, this has been ID'd within the A trend, therefore additionally ID'd as an A trend.

Now with this EE being n-1, one goes to the next set to the right in the Modrian table and finds BM,rev as a defined a turn with a prior EE of c turn. From here, there are only three possible c turns as the next EE. If the n event fails to make the list, that EE is ID'd as a b turn and the trend advances with the EE having an additional ID of B trend.

If this n-1 EE was listed in the Modrian, then it's a c turn, ID'd as such, Trend ID is complete at B trend and on the next bar one goes back to the yellow cell and restarts with this new c turn at n-1 in Set A.

EE's can be of any turn type and any trend type. However they can only do this in predefined sequences.


Is the modrian table just used to anticipate which type of EE will happen in the next few bars?

No, it's essential, in building turn types to trend types to move reversals. These all are inform what is the current correct side of the market and how quickly that is or is not changing.


I haven't figured out how to use segments with containers. I don't think I have figured out how to use either one yet and am focusing on RDBMS as you suggested. I hope I'll be able to see what you see in the near future

Containers at their most fundamental level are parallelograms. If one thinks in terms of the extracting profits at the long diagonal of the parallelogram, then the opportunities for profit extraction multiply.


Wow I feel like a bundle of questions. Just when I think I'm getting closer... I find I still don't know enough. I wonder if Jack really expected people to become experts in 20 days?

Your answer is a short 20 days of logging away. The questions that are arising is a demonstration that your subconscious is working, processing and that REAL learning is occurring. Trading is building.

There is a caveat - make complete, accurate logs and post.

 

[tiddlywinks]

@Sprout :
In response to volume being the determinant of the type/nature of an OB versus the ID'd sequence being the determinant of type/nature of an OB... you said regarding volume...

It does. Just as you previously suggested, a T1 on the upper level at EOB volume is distinctly different from T1 at beginning of an XR bar transforming into an OB with increasing volume.

There is no doubt a price bar can (or won't) morph into a different final eob characterization. If morphed, explanation is merely a recital of logic of the morphing "steps". The fact is, looking at a hindsight chart there is no "when" associated. You seem fixated on intrabar morphing. The example being discussed, all that is "known" is that between bar start(open) and bar end(close) morphing steps occurred, period. Without "knowing" the state of both independent and dependent variables AT THE MOMENT, this OB example might have been a SYM until, say, 90% of the way to eob. We "don't know." If the example is a 5-min bar, 90% is 270 seconds of 300. Now if you want to think you could do proper MADA, and make multiple (profitable?) trades based on intrabar movement, I say you need to rethink that idea.

More important, if/when both variables are known, what indicates changing the OB type/nature from a T1/P2 to being P2/T2P? In your analysis, timing is beyond everything, and signals/triggers are perceptible for as long as literally, you do not blink. Being tradable other than automated would be somewhat off topic with that foundation.

In the T1/P2 case there is no EE. The OB is ID'd P2. Next measurable becomes P2, T2P, or P1.
In a P2/TP2 case there is an EE. The OB is marked PP5. Next measurable becomes P1, mandated. I want to point out an obvious:
T1/P2 progresses an existing sequence.
P2/T2P ends an existing sequence... Welcome to the overlap zone on a segment scale. A trend, a segment of price movement, an existing sequence HAS ended, a new sequence, a new segment IS about to begin.

So is it the ID'd sequence, or the volume that determines the type/nature of an OB? Intrabar morphing is merely a logical progression. OB is a lock-in, possible through all morphing logic paths at ANY TIME during bar formation. While working intrabar, be sure to include the possibility of a one-bar complete sequence(good luck with that). IMO, the intrabar analysis as you are doing, is straying from the relational database, and is creating a false sense of being trade-able for profit. You have forgotten at least one critical question... where are you (within the next bigger container)? The sequence is the sequence until/unless it isn't.

 

[baro-san]

I confess having only a vague understanding of this Hershey approach, and not having an interest in deepening it, but I browse from time to time these two threads that keep Jack's memory alive.

So, sorry to briefly interject an idea into this OB discussion. What if you consider the OB on the same level with the "internals", a "wait", and don't force it in any direction?

 

[tiddlywinks]

I confess having only a vague understanding of this Hershey approach, and not having an interest in deepening it, but I browse from time to time these two threads that keep Jack's memory alive.

So, sorry to briefly interject an idea into this OB discussion. What if you consider the OB on the same level with the "internals", a "wait", and don't force it in any direction?

OB always has permission to measure volume, no matter the lock-in path taken or the speed at which it formed.

 

[Sprout]

@Sprout :
In response to volume being the determinant of the type/nature of an OB versus the ID'd sequence being the determinant of type/nature of an OB... you said regarding volume...



There is no doubt a price bar can (or won't) morph into a different final eob characterization. If morphed, explanation is merely a recital of logic of the morphing "steps". The fact is, looking at a hindsight chart there is no "when" associated. You seem fixated on intrabar morphing. The example being discussed, all that is "known" is that between bar start(open) and bar end(close) morphing steps occurred, period. Without "knowing" the state of both independent and dependent variables AT THE MOMENT, this OB example might have been a SYM until, say, 90% of the way to eob. We "don't know." If the example is a 5-min bar, 90% is 270 seconds of 300. Now if you want to think you could do proper MADA, and make multiple (profitable?) trades based on intrabar movement, I say you need to rethink that idea.


You are correct. In a hindsight chart, it's all EOB. However performing MADA is distinct from waiting for EOB. There are certain market environments that call for this - mainly when volatility is high and one goes to a faster timescale to discern. It also requires a trading setup that is more than a 5m chart. Granted, (at least for me at my level of development) it's a challenging scenario to do with any lengthy duration. Going to a faster timescale it like 'unsquishing' internals.



More important, if/when both variables are known, what indicates changing the OB type/nature from a T1/P2 to being P2/T2P? In your analysis, timing is beyond everything, and signals/triggers are perceptible for as long as literally, you do not blink. Being tradable other than automated would be somewhat off topic with that foundation.

Perhaps I miscommunicated. This method focuses on events not timing. Each price case is a granular event. There is a timing component for hold/reverse trading in 'carving' turns. Carving turns is an overlay on PVT, SCT, RDBMS and SSR.

My comments about the OB were mainly directed to PP4.

In the T1/P2 case there is no EE. The OB is ID'd P2. Next measurable becomes P2, T2P, or P1.
In a P2/TP2 case there is an EE. The OB is marked PP5. Next measurable becomes P1, mandated. I want to point out an obvious:
T1/P2 progresses an existing sequence.
P2/T2P ends an existing sequence... Welcome to the overlap zone on a segment scale. A trend, a segment of price movement, an existing sequence HAS ended, a new sequence, a new segment IS about to begin.

Your logic is sound.


So is it the ID'd sequence, or the volume that determines the type/nature of an OB? Intrabar morphing is merely a logical progression. OB is a lock-in, possible through all morphing logic paths at ANY TIME during bar formation. While working intrabar, be sure to include the possibility of a one-bar complete sequence(good luck with that). IMO, the intrabar analysis as you are doing, is straying from the relational database, and is creating a false sense of being trade-able for profit. You have forgotten at least one critical question... where are you (within the next bigger container)? The sequence is the sequence until/unless it isn't.

I respect your pov, however, there is more to OB's than what you have distinguished. I'll follow up with another post.

Comments within quoted text.

 

[Sprout]

I confess having only a vague understanding of this Hershey approach, and not having an interest in deepening it, but I browse from time to time these two threads that keep Jack's memory alive.

So, sorry to briefly interject an idea into this OB discussion. What if you consider the OB on the same level with the "internals", a "wait", and don't force it in any direction?

This is a valid observation which Jack himself has often quoted ~"2 of the 10 price cases permit measurement." To avoid confusion, I believe he said it in a beginner context. Later as folks were ready to differentiate OB's then the 'default' state was introduced to 'change' state which included permission to measure.