Questions to Jack Hershey

"""""""Since I believe the trading fractal must be surrounded by a slower fractal and a faster fractal, there are three interlocking fractals on which Doms and non-doms are seen and annotated.""""""""

Can anyone please bring an example of one on one corresponding annotation of Doms and non-doms on three fractals?I especially would like to know how slower to trading fractal relationship.

Jack,teach me tonight,baby.
 
Quote from hkrahra:

"""""""Since I believe the trading fractal must be surrounded by a slower fractal and a faster fractal, there are three interlocking fractals on which Doms and non-doms are seen and annotated.""""""""

Can anyone please bring an example of one on one corresponding annotation of Doms and non-doms on three fractals?I especially would like to know how slower to trading fractal relationship.

Jack,teach me tonight,baby.
More...

Why is it that you "believe" that the trading fractal must be surrounded by a faster and slower one?

Backtesting?

Observation?

Makes sense?

I am asking seriously, since this is a commonly stated concept.
 
Quote from bmwhendrix:

Why is it that you "believe" that the trading fractal must be surrounded by a faster and slower one?

Backtesting?

Observation?

Makes sense?

I am asking seriously, since this is a commonly stated concept.
More...

A slower fractal you`d need for the sustaining purpose.It tells you: ''hey,i`m seriuos to go long/short!''

A faster fractal you`d need for the precise entries.

You leave a trading fractal alone.All you need from a trading fractal is its ftt(s).

What i was trying to ask was - how many trading fractals could be within the slower fractal,and what should i do to find it out.Is there one pager for 'slower-trading' annotation? I believe the answer in volume,but i`d like to see it visually from those who`s mastered this part of MADA.
 
Thanks for the response. The problem that I have with this is that it assumes that the slower fractal will continue. You enter on the faster fractal, but find that the trading fractal is actually signaling a reversal on the slower one. You lose. This happens as often as does continuation on the slower fractal. or a fake on the slower fractal.

Think about it. How many moving average systems have used this concept, or others with various indicators. As long as the slower one is moving in a general direction in a relaxed manner, and you are not constantly stopped out on the faster fractal, it works for a while.
But eventually things go sideways, or chop on the slower fractal, and it all goes to hell. Think about it.
 
Quote from bmwhendrix:

Thanks for the response. The problem that I have with this is that it assumes that the slower fractal will continue. You enter on the faster fractal, but find that the trading fractal is actually signaling a reversal on the slower one. You lose. This happens as often as does continuation on the slower fractal. or a fake on the slower fractal.

Think about it. How many moving average systems have used this concept, or others with various indicators. As long as the slower one is moving in a general direction in a relaxed manner, and you are not constantly stopped out on the faster fractal, it works for a while.
But eventually things go sideways, or chop on the slower fractal, and it all goes to hell. Think about it.
More...


yvw

''''''''You enter on the faster fractal, but find that the trading fractal is actually signaling a reversal on the slower one.'''''''

Not sure what you were trying to describe.But,as Jack previously stated,all trends do begin on the faster fractal,so you anticipate the impending end on a slower fractal,bookmark it,and enter on a faster - this is ftt of the trading.Next you hold through the whole trading fractal to the ftt.This is the point where i lose connection with WMCN.I know that it is the first leg of the slower,i know that a trading fractal went from ftt to ftt and,i also know that WMCN may be either reverse or continuation,so i exit. The faster fractal could run away so fast,that you would miss the end of the slower fractal.I guess the clue might be in sub and sub-sub fractals.


'''''''''But eventually things go sideways, or chop on the slower fractal, and it all goes to hell. Think about it.'''''''''

No,there is never a chop on the slower fractal,as it is always enough in magnitude.You choose the slower with enough magnitude in the first place.
 
Jack,don`t you know i`m still standing better than i ever did?
Looking like a true survivor,feeling like a little kid.

Where is my 5 books suit godamit!!!
 
Two more reasons why the system is flawed:

One: Fractals morph. What you may be calling the slow fractal today, with say a given level of volatility, range, volume, etc. may have morphed into your trading fractal or some other in a month or 2. Think about it. This is why moving average systems do not work, because the "proper" ma is always changing as the fractals morph.

Two: There is indeed chop on all fractals, remember that they morph.
Think about this. The market does not always know what it wants to do. There are times that there is not a majority of the market players
with a given bias. The market is just people, not an elaborate equation slowly unveiling itself. In these times the random element of movement which is always present to some degree becomes more pronounced. Think about it.

Just trying to keep you and others from wasting your time. That is all you really have in life.

My work is done. Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top