Dunnow. Jack says, "annotate traverses", so I annotate traverses. They seem to keep me focused. But so does writing out a 'sweep' narrative in longhand, in real time. Whatever cooks one's goose, i guess.
--laz
Question for Grob/Hershey...
- Thread starter makosgu
- Start date
- Status
Dunnow. Jack says, "annotate traverses", so I annotate traverses. They seem to keep me focused. But so does writing out a 'sweep' narrative in longhand, in real time. Whatever cooks one's goose, i guess.
--laz
I'm a little rusty on my Jack, but pray tell, how many independent parameters does one watch in a sweep? And how long does one take for each sweep? An NLP question, really. Trying to understand the cognitive throughput required to Jack. I would guess that you know where I am coming from, if you try to maintain that level of attentiveness for 6.5 hours every day. A not inconsiderable task in itself, no matter what one monitors. Trust an old man, I am going somewhere with this. All in the spirit of Socratic dialogue, of course.
Channel intact? check.
Traverse intact? check
Indicators humming along? check
Volume increasing or unchanging? check
That's the simplest sweep. 1 second, maybe. You should get this result for most of a traverse (10min+). In my operational framework, it's an or gate. This may or may not be the orthodox interpretation.
If something sends you to medium (you can find the sweep doc somewhere), the flag is up, if there's a flaw on medium (basically the same sweep as above, but on YM) the flag is waving, and then you do the DOM thing, to repeat Jack's metaphor.
In practice, you can just bang away on the coarse and medium a lot. Or so I've been told.
Personally, I find the in-between times (long pauses on wide traverses, when to widen a traverse on a slower pace, etc)quite difficult, and should spend some time sweeping those periods with intention (and not trading). Often, I'm so exhausted from trying to figure that stuff out that when the really obvious trade comes along I can't hit it. (like the rocket long this afternoon).
By way of comparison, see Mak's charts. He's probably a lot more relaxed than I am.
--laz
Now that is interesting. I think I once made a count, and identified 44 independent elements in a Jack sweep. If I counted right, you mentioned nine. Now, that is not a criticism, because where I was headed was prioritizing by the Pareto principle and reducing the input rate to what NLP tells us has low error rate. If anyone here is Jack's amanuensis, it is you (as we haven't seen Wolfenstein for a while). Any comments from your practical trading experience on the limiting throughput rate? You are young and quick minded, so your cognition should be near to the limiting case. Did you consciously choose to sweep less than Jack teaches?
Let's keep it serious, please. YOU know that Socrates was condemned to death by the Athenian state for corrupting the morals of the youth, but no one ELSE here does. I am an old man with a masochistic taste for the hemlock, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would permit me to work my petty sophistries. There are important intellectual, cognitive and self-delusional issues to be addressed here. Always totally respectfully, of course. There are many parallels with the golden age of Greece which bear drawing out (channels, as it were) in the present context. If there is one thing which Jack teaches us, it is that trading is all about accurate and non-delusional cognition. Being nigh unto death myself, I am interested in the prioritization of experience and the quality thereof. Trading is the ultimate experience, because, when sex becomes an impossibility, one can still trade. Seamlessly (I am old enough to remeber when nylons had seams, and seamlessness would have seemed perverse). And continuously.
This is like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?". The appropriate hermeneutic is repetition, not addition or elaboration, for reading the previous discussion of the sweep concept in Newb's old thread.
My understanding is that one stays on 'coarse' a lot. Even if there are 44 elements in the sweep set (or whatever the count is), the longest path through them is a very rare case. Redundancy is built in, as a lot of the paths are valid at the same time, so if you miss something, you catch it elsewhere.
Trying to analyze every level at once is a sure recipe for a brain fart. The fix for that is to take the text quite literally, e.g.:
--
If you go back and look at my old charts, I completely misunderstood the primary sequence:
pt1 -> traverse -> pt2 -> traverse -> pt3
In the older charts, there are an awful lot of pt 3's labeled that do not have intervening traverses after pt 2. This increase in the number of channels forces one further down the sweep tree more often, yielding completely unreliable analysis.
--
HTH,
--laz
I am not trying to induce doubt, merely asking, or preparing to ask, in the spirit of the Pareto principle, what is most important in Jack sweeping. For example, being a modern mercenary material girl, I look at oil price first. That goes oh so far in explaining the otherwise inexplicable and apparently random (50%) failure of FTTs, which I call FFTTs, for obvious reasons.
I also look at whether price is getting it off (so to speak) consistently at the bid or the ask. "There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Polonius, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I am absolutely fascinated that you have pared down the method to so few parameters. That is like wearing your yarmulke, but eating pork and passing on the bris.
Consider DOM, for example. How MANY levels does one watch? Each one constitutes a sweep datum which competes for bandwidth. How synched is synch? Is it a little bit? Medium? Too much? How guasian [sic] is guasian? Like, how many sigmas? These are all things which cause me doubt as I am watching oil scream up and NQ scream down. What to believe?
Compare that to "Is price following oil, or not?" Or "Did we just make a higher high on lower volume?" (does anybody here remember the Phoenix?).
Ooops, I am slipping from Socratical into Polemical. Y'all DO remember the great Greek philosopher Polemies, doncha?
I also look at whether price is getting it off (so to speak) consistently at the bid or the ask. "There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Polonius, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I am absolutely fascinated that you have pared down the method to so few parameters. That is like wearing your yarmulke, but eating pork and passing on the bris.
Consider DOM, for example. How MANY levels does one watch? Each one constitutes a sweep datum which competes for bandwidth. How synched is synch? Is it a little bit? Medium? Too much? How guasian [sic] is guasian? Like, how many sigmas? These are all things which cause me doubt as I am watching oil scream up and NQ scream down. What to believe?
Compare that to "Is price following oil, or not?" Or "Did we just make a higher high on lower volume?" (does anybody here remember the Phoenix?).
Ooops, I am slipping from Socratical into Polemical. Y'all DO remember the great Greek philosopher Polemies, doncha?
- Status