Spydertrader's Jack Hershey Futures Trading Journal

[Spydertrader]

I encourage everyone to remain focused and avoid the temptation to engage in debate with those with no other agenda than to sidetrack the focus of this thread. ET has provided tools to facilitate this process. By clicking Ignore and Complain, disruptive individuals fail to receive the attention they desire. I encourage everyone to follow Magna's advice and spend their time towards more productive ends.

Good Trading to you all.

- Spydertrader

 

[taowave]

Quote from hypostomus:

They are saying that volume, once transacted, is predictive of price. Does price go up or down after Goldman is filled?

Gotcha..Thats what happens when I jump in late,but its an interesting debate..

I think you are asking me what happens if Goldman is clean on the cross,as opposed to being long 1.5 million shares..I need to ponder

FWIW,I look at realtive volume in price swings as I have not backtested any decent volume studies that I would trade.

 

[Spydertrader]

Quote from taowave:

Before i go thru each journal,have you made any specific references to EOD trading on daily and weekly bars??? The only references I have from Jack is the reduced profitability of EOD relative to intraday...

The Equities methods use Daily Bars for the nightly analysis. Intra-day refers to the futures methods using a 5 minute time frame. Equities use the Daily Time Frame.

- Spydertrader

 

[hypostomus]

Liquidity is necessary but not sufficient. Might one think RANGE has anything to do with it? TONS of liquidity, NO range.

 

[R/R]

Quote from EstebanUno:

I've seen the flaw annotations on your charts, but haven't found much material about how to identify them. If these are part of the PV relationship we are covering in January, please direct me to where I can learn the details of these? (Like your last post - a great help.) It's not clear to me from the syllabus whether flaws are topical now or are being postponed until later. But I'd sure like to know more about them.

I am reviewing Jack's "Channels For Building Wealth" document right now and there are introductions to these concepts toward the end of the document.

The document is available here:
http://www.traderuniverse.info/documentspage.htm

 

[EstebanUno]

Quote from R/R:

I am reviewing Jack's "Channels For Building Wealth" document right now and there are introductions to these concepts toward the end of the document.

The document is available here:
http://www.traderuniverse.info/documentspage.htm

I did read that document when this thread began. After just reviewing it looking for a discussion of flaws, it's clear to me that I would benefit from going over the material again, now that I have a much better understanding of channels and PV.

I found very little on flaws however, the snippet on pg 119 seems to be it. "... Flaws and WWT are messages to you, that tell you to go and look at the depth of market. ..." So maybe this is a topic for April.

However it seems these flaws are an integral part of the PV relationship in the context of channels. It might simplify rather than complicate the identification of FTTs to be able to spot flaws strictly in the context of PV.

 

[Magna]

Although it's an open forum I remind everyone that this thread is a presentation of a particular methodology, a way of looking at the markets, along with daily examples. It is not a debate over each and every point made, each and every nuance. There are many other forums on ET arguing over those subjects (importance of volume, relationship of price and volume, trendlines, channels, support/resistance, use of indicators, etc.) and if these are burning issues for you best that you take your conversation to those other threads or start your own.

By quoting those who are anxious to contest each point you repeat and reinforce what they say giving them credibility. Even more ironic, you force all those who have them on Ignore to read their posts. I ask that if you want to support Spydertrader's generous and extensive efforts you do not quote them and do not engage them and do not comment on them, as all that does is direct attention to them which is exactly what they want. As Spydertrader recently said...

Quote from Spydertrader:

Debating with others over the validity of the P-V Relationship serves no purpose. In fact, it is a complete waste of time.

...I fail to understand why anyone who believes what has been posted here contains no merit would waste their time demanding 'proof' when so much less energy is required to simply walk away and not click on the link to this thread.

 

[spooz_trader1]

Quote from EstebanUno:
I found very little on flaws however, the snippet on pg 119 seems to be it. "... Flaws and WWT are messages to you, that tell you to go and look at the depth of market. ..." So maybe this is a topic for April.

However it seems these flaws are an integral part of the PV relationship in the context of channels. It might simplify rather than complicate the identification of FTTs to be able to spot flaws strictly in the context of PV.

Given the current Journal focus of spotting FTT's only using ES price and volume, I'm wondering if it's reasonable to consider Flaws in the following manner: a WWT point of view. Bear with me and I'll try to articulate what I'm thinking...

Say we're in an uptrend (dominate traverse in a long channel) and we have increasing black volume over several bars. Cool. Next we observe peaking black volume and price fails to hit the channel LTL. I'm thinking to myself "potential FTT". Looking at the Vol bars, we see the first half of a B2R gaussian. If it really IS a B2R, then I would expect to see the latter half of the B2R (the red half) form next. This will probably take a few bars to form. Right?

However, if I take a WWT point of view, if "things" appear that don't help build the latter-half of the B2R guassian (or appear out of sequence), either I've made a *flaw* in my analysis of a FTT or I'm encountering a Flaw. Is this correct?

Obviously, a ton of things can happen in the above example (after hitting peak Vol). Price can continue, turn, go into CCC, etc.

I guess the point/question I'm trying to make is: At this point given where I'm at and the current focus of the journal, does it really matter what type of flaw is encountered when looking for FTT's? If something "breaks" the sequence (in this example, the B2R gaussian sequence), is it probably a flaw?

I'd appreciate any comments or feedback on this line of thinking. I apologize in advance if I'm confusing the topic at hand.

spooz

 

[R/R]

Quote from EstebanUno:

I did read that document when this thread began. After just reviewing it looking for a discussion of flaws, it's clear to me that I would benefit from going over the material again, now that I have a much better understanding of channels and PV.

I found very little on flaws however, the snippet on pg 119 seems to be it. "... Flaws and WWT are messages to you, that tell you to go and look at the depth of market. ..." So maybe this is a topic for April.

However it seems these flaws are an integral part of the PV relationship in the context of channels. It might simplify rather than complicate the identification of FTTs to be able to spot flaws strictly in the context of PV.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, it is my understanding that "Flaw" is used in the current context as any of the following:
Hitch, Dip, Stall, HVS, CCC, etc. - as a flaw in the trend. These are discussed on page 101 with some PV description, but not in great depth.
You may well understand this and if so I apologize. However, I detected from your response that you were looking for a description of a Flaw, per se, as a particular (PV) formation rather than in a broader context.

 

[EstebanUno]

Quote from R/R:

Just to make sure we are on the same page, it is my understanding that "Flaw" is used in the current context as any of the following:
Hitch, Dip, Stall, HVS, CCC, etc. - as a flaw in the trend. These are discussed on page 101 with some PV description, but not in great depth.
You may well understand this and if so I apologize. However, I detected from your response that you were looking for a description of a Flaw, per se, as a particular (PV) formation rather than in a broader context.

Yes R/R we are on the same page. Page 101 is just what I was looking for. Thanks. I searched for "flaw" and this term does not show up on that page, so I missed the discussion this time around. I think I need to review that document in its entirety.