Spydertrader's Jack Hershey Futures Trading Journal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from ivob:

IMO it's not a generalisation or a rule of thumb but one of the essentials of FTT's.

We always need decreasing volume as a sign of change (followed by decreasing non dom volume towards RTL). "Decreasing" means by definition lower at this moment in comparison with a moment before.

Ivo
More...

Ivo,

I totally agree with what you said and it is the one of the main rules of the JHM.

The generalization I was referring to is my expectation after a a high volume bar. On most occasions once we get a gaussian peak with the highest volume for the day, we will see lower and lower peaks until we get the FTT. Sometimes we don't see the lower gaussian peaks because the dominant direction has changed and this is what catches me by surprise. I am waiting for the dominant direction to resume and miss the signal that indicated the change in the dominant direction.

Basically, what I am trying to say is if you see the highest volume for the day it is very likely that it will determine the dominant direction for a while but one also has to be ready for the possibility of the dominant direction changing right away. Sometimes I am not alert for the possibility of the quick dominant direction change.
 
Since my return to studies, I am focusing on understanding only one thing: identifying pt3's.

Mak has stated (some time ago) and I took Spyder's silence on the issue to mean he agreed, that pt3's by definition occurr on increasing volume over the prior bar. I think this has been talked about many times.

I have studied many of Spyders charts, and a large % of his pt3's (perhaps not half, but much more than 1/4) do not occurr on increasing volume.

In the channels video which I created, I described an idealized situation where you get two tapes in counter directions which creates the pt3. Problem is, that ideal almost never happens.

Now, I am fully aware of staying on the correct resolution, but pt3's are one of the places we are supposoed to be looking finer. For me, finer is bar to bar (I'm not even pondering PRV at this point). So if not increasing volume to tell it's a pt3, what is?

Maybe this isn't even the right question. Perhaps I should be asking, what % of pt3's I identify should turn out indeed to be pt3's? I thought Spyder made it pretty clear that this isn't guesswork, and that one should be able to go back and debrief to find error if one is wrong. With one caveate, I'm not able to to that. The caveate is this: you can't use the same argument to make two different conclusions in two instances of similar context.
 
Quote from bundlemaker:

I have studied many of Spyders charts, and a large % of his pt3's (perhaps not half, but much more than 1/4) do not occurr on increasing volume.
More...

Hi bundle,

Glad to see you hitting the books again. If you posted examples when you make comments like these, you would probably get more specific, helpful responses. Maybe try and snip one from today's or yesterday's charts if it is something you see so often.

I'll take a stab at it, though. From what I can see, there is 100% always every time increasing volume at a point 3, but given the limited geometry of 5 minute bars this is not always apparent, especially during less volatile times. If you look at the 2m YM though, or even a lower ES fractal, or even just be more aware of the 5m intrabar breakdown of red vs. black, this might be easier to see. I suspect spy et al take a lot of their PT3 volume cues from the YM.
 
Quote from bundlemaker:

Since my return to studies, I am focusing on understanding only one thing: identifying pt3's.

Mak has stated (some time ago) and I took Spyder's silence on the issue to mean he agreed, that pt3's by definition occurr on increasing volume over the prior bar. I think this has been talked about many times.

I have studied many of Spyders charts, and a large % of his pt3's (perhaps not half, but much more than 1/4) do not occurr on increasing volume.

In the channels video which I created, I described an idealized situation where you get two tapes in counter directions which creates the pt3. Problem is, that ideal almost never happens.

Now, I am fully aware of staying on the correct resolution, but pt3's are one of the places we are supposoed to be looking finer. For me, finer is bar to bar (I'm not even pondering PRV at this point). So if not increasing volume to tell it's a pt3, what is?

Maybe this isn't even the right question. Perhaps I should be asking, what % of pt3's I identify should turn out indeed to be pt3's? I thought Spyder made it pretty clear that this isn't guesswork, and that one should be able to go back and debrief to find error if one is wrong. With one caveate, I'm not able to to that. The caveate is this: you can't use the same argument to make two different conclusions in two instances of similar context.
More...

Hershey gives explicit instructions on how to trade beginner rockets:

MACD >= .40 and slow and fast stoch >80 go long
MACD <= -.40 and slow and fast stoch < 20 go short
HOLD til the fast line moves < 80 to exit longs and > 20 to exit shorts.

Hershey says beginners should make $75,000 a year trading 1 contract on rockets.

Bundlemaker, it sounds like you want/need more explicit instructions like beginner rockets.
Just my humble suggestion fwiw.
 

Attachments

Thank you Pro. I appreciate your feedback and your comments last Monday. Attached is one of Spyders charts. You'll note there are eight pt3's annotated. Of those, I see six of them NOT on increasing volume.

I'm extraordinarily disappointed that Spyder has chosen not to respond directly to any of my recent questions (other than to say take a break, which I did). Seems he's given up on me. I'm not looking for color by number as the above poster suggests. I am looking for consistancy. Several weeks ago I was told that PRV NEVER did such and such and amazingly I posted an example that proved it did.

Now I'm questioning what had previously been posted in this thread as a hard and fast rule. I studied SPyder's charts and found this not to be the case. (see attached file as example).

If anyone wishes to go back and review my posts these past few weeks, you may find a confrontational tone, but all (I didn't review them all so perhaps not 100%) my posts have requested specific answers to specific situations. I got lots of what I call "ungrounded" answers. And non-sequiters.

I wouldn't be here as a thorn if I didn't believe it was worth while. I have offered to do whatever Spyder says. I took the week off, honest and clean. I have returned ready to learn.

Mak suggested (and Spyder indirectly agreed) that I tend to focus on what doesn't work. I'd be delighted to focus on what does work if I could find the path to doing so.

Spyder: there are people who attended Tucson, who had been working on this method over 2 years ago, that still aren't getting it. And they're not like me. It's not just Easyb. IT's others. And until we can see how this works through our own eyes we'll never get it. I want to learn and am ready to accept your instructions.
 
In my defence, vis a vis the idea that I focus on what doesn't work, I'd like to point out that Spyder has on more than one occaision suggested we review his charts, do our own homework, and find out what we see. That's all I did. I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm looking for a way to see this thing differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top