There is a recording floating around from one of his meetings. They discuss how to deal with FBO's. Some guy in the room asked: "well, when do you get in on FTT so you can break even if you have to reverse" - his answer was: "If you are too late, you're screwed" Hilarious! That answer pinpoints an exact nature of this crap.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Technical Strategy
- Thread starter Tums
- Start date
Quote from gucci:
Jack, with all due respect... what the hell are you doing??? Pushing down the newbies???
If you really wanna help, then at least pay attention to what you are saying. This is irresponsible. Whatever... Enjoy your life.
My comments to the chart poster were complimentary only. I felt his monitoring was leading to excellence analysiss, decision making and taking timely action, ie, on his trading fractal all trades would be profit taking segments.
So I complimented his degapping upon market open where he completed the carryover satisfactorily. Traders do not hold over night in SCT but they do in PVT. In intraday trading is is good to be able to enter on the first Bar and do hold reversal trades. In PVT position trading stocks, the Universe assures over night holds bring more profits.
I only mentioned the bookmarks since it is a good reference for 0 slopes on trades where the points 2, and 3 are yet to come into existance. After point 3, VE's increase slopes so you just make more money when you steepen the hold money welocity; it is also true you may have to fan when "internals" straddle the RTL. The limiting case for fanning is the book mark on a given fractal. At that time the trade becomes a wash trade and you give up the profits you were earning starting at the reversal on the prior trading fractal FTT. This, concurrently, is the time that finding a point 3 of this ensuing contemporary trading fractal is no longer possible.
In the next interval of time, the trader rides onward in the market on the way to a new FTT of the prior trading fractal. He adds another profit segment that begins at the olf FTT value and grows to the new FTT value.
Someone harranged all of PEP and it applications and mentioned he lost 4 points because of a bookmark utilization. You also post a detracting comment about how I am NOT helping newbies in any way. Both of you guys have a common viewpoint probably based upon your annotating work, the application of MADA rules and maybe some inventiveness on your part. My suggestion to both of you is to debrief and find out what unique and improper handling of the order of events that occurred for you.
TN is now capable of boxing internals and laterals and it will also automatically degap your charts at each open. You DO have to do the carry over of your annotations however. It is my belief that there are many many snippets you can apply to your charts from the TN library that we have created over the years. If you are accustomed to tweaking the leading indicators therein, I would caution you about leaping too far ahead of your selves in any way.
Also you may wish to post your critique's AND the charts that they came from. If a person loses any money trading PEP and its applications, there is usually a quick solution that can be applied to prevent such an invention from being used ever again. Many many others can straighten you out on your departures from the correct approaches.
Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:
Hilarious!
Failed BO is a retrace.
Jumping fractals is when you don't know if you got a retrace or reversal.
Your statement reads: "If you can tell the difference between the retrace and reversal, you can trade them". Your methodology is not capable of differentiating one from another.
Hershey's solution is to reverse on green bookmark, Spydertrader's - to trade the trendline breaks.
Both crutches produce losing P&L consistently.
All of the statements above are incorrect for those using PEP and its applications.
FBO's of RTL's are handled as fanning when the FBO is an internal of any sort. that is the former trend is continuing and the dominance of sentiment did not change. (See particularly the volume failure to follow WMCN.
the markets are composed of about seven nested fractals. The nesting is by virtue of a rigid ration of parts. A slower fractal contain three price/4 volume moves of the next faster fractal. the market does not have a time variable; what replaces time is an oerfer of events (OOE). The best exhibit of theis event relationship is the rigid ratio (3:!) of parts. A single pattern on each and every fractal results. The long version is B2B 2R 2B; conversely the short version of a trend is R2R 2B 2R.
Covel was given this (along with the peaks and troughs of volume and he referred to it as rubbish and gibberish. In other words he stated that he didn't get it at all. This is true for many many people.
By mot monitoring (and annotating P, V fractals) a person easily jumps from one fractal to another as volume PACE lessens or increases. Adjacent bar relationships show, By market PACE, the interelationship of bar volatility and bar overlap. MAK posted these charts many years ago. Gaussian characterisitcs exist both vertically and horizontally. This shows the regularity of the markets and why there is no noise nor anomalies.
Retraces begin on the LTL and reversals begin on the FTT of the particular parallelogram involved. volume declines from a peak to the point of reaching the RTL where the retrace ends. The reversal becomes dominant as it climbs from the volume trough as it croosed the RTL. In parallelogram notation a retrace goes from point 2 to point 3. conversely a reversal begins at point 1 and goes to point 2. as it make the trip it BO's the RTL and tend overlap ends. It is a peak trough peak sequence volumewise. The retrace is simply a peakto trough phenomena.
Both spyder and I reverse on FTT's and hold on that fractal and reverse again on the next and ending of fractal FTT. Niether of us use the RTL BO as anything but a hold on the way fraom point 1 to point 2.
Bookmarks are rarely places where price approaches; it they are approached it is ALWAYS going from point 2 to point 3 and where a horizontal line is being approached.
Do not attempt to mix the CW type trading with PEP and its applications. IF you have CW beliefs our trading approach is NOT for you.
Quote from jack hershey:
All of the statements above are incorrect for those using PEP and its applications.
It is a very convenient way to support your position by simply stating that the other person is wrong. It's rightful place is in spin, politics and religion. It doesn't belong in the conversation between two rational thinking human beings.
FBO's of RTL's are handled as fanning when the FBO is an internal of any sort. that is the former trend is continuing and the dominance of sentiment did not change. (See particularly the volume failure to follow WMCN.
Volume failure doesn't mean that WMCN fails, WMCN failure always comes with volume failure. You are making the same error in judgment as people who think that couples who adopt are more likely to conceive. It is the easiest of perceptual biases to commit.
the markets are composed of about seven nested fractals. The nesting is by virtue of a rigid ration of parts. A slower fractal contain three price/4 volume moves of the next faster fractal. the market does not have a time variable; what replaces time is an oerfer of events (OOE). The best exhibit of theis event relationship is the rigid ratio (3:!) of parts. A single pattern on each and every fractal results. The long version is B2B 2R 2B; conversely the short version of a trend is R2R 2B 2R.
The market doesn't comply with this type of ordering. A consistent way of annotating the market doesn't exist. Spydertrader's charts prove it. Any rational person can degap them and take a look at the next day to see if what his annotations anticipated, had actually materialized. Without a failure it never did.
Covel was given this (along with the peaks and troughs of volume and he referred to it as rubbish and gibberish. In other words he stated that he didn't get it at all.
Perhaps you should consider the intended meaning of his words. Any person who studied the market would immediately see that your generalizations do not hold true and are refuted by the market itself. "Naive" induction is what 5-graders go through until corrected by a competent teacher.
This is true for many many people.
By mot monitoring (and annotating P, V fractals) a person easily jumps from one fractal to another as volume PACE lessens or increases. Adjacent bar relationships show, By market PACE, the interelationship of bar volatility and bar overlap. MAK posted these charts many years ago.
I am surprised that nobody pointed out a major flaw in his findings. "Correlation does not imply causation" It is being taught to sophomores every year. Volume doesn't lead price all the time, it does only on some occasions.
Gaussian characterisitcs exist both vertically and horizontally. This shows the regularity of the markets and why there is no noise nor anomalies.
Retraces begin on the LTL and reversals begin on the FTT of the particular parallelogram involved. volume declines from a peak to the point of reaching the RTL where the retrace ends. The reversal becomes dominant as it climbs from the volume trough as it croosed the RTL. In parallelogram notation a retrace goes from point 2 to point 3. conversely a reversal begins at point 1 and goes to point 2. as it make the trip it BO's the RTL and tend overlap ends. It is a peak trough peak sequence volumewise. The retrace is simply a peakto trough phenomena.
You are describing one particular way the trend has developed. Other ways exist that don't comply with your attempted ordering of the market. Any rational person will come to the same conclusion by simply observing the market itself
Both spyder and I reverse on FTT's and hold on that fractal and reverse again on the next and ending of fractal FTT. Niether of us use the RTL BO as anything but a hold on the way fraom point 1 to point 2.
To accomplish what you are describing, a person has to be able to know that one fractal has ended and another began. Otherwise it is known as differentiating between the retrace and reversal. You are not capable of doing that. Neither does Spydertrader. His charts are the proof. He advised his followers to trade the trendline breaks if they don't know where they are in the order of events. This approach will produce losing P&L consistently.
Bookmarks are rarely places where price approaches; it they are approached it is ALWAYS going from point 2 to point 3 and where a horizontal line is being approached.
Do not attempt to mix the CW type trading with PEP and its applications. IF you have CW beliefs our trading approach is NOT for you.
This is not about me. As always your post is a compilation of any number of illogical (propagandistic) devices used in argument, barring some glittering generalizations.
The chart poster displays a complete ignorance of all 7 FTT's that resulted in failed BO's. They are conveniently fanned and tacked into the trendline. It is a very comforting thing to do when annotating the market. However, it is completely useless when it comes to real trading. All 7 failed BO's would have resulted in significant losses that would not be recovered by those FTT's that were followed by reversals. The trend took more then two days to complete, so the number of fractals is more then 7. The annotations on the volume pane are reflective and not anticipatory and completely ignorant of sequential nature of market. GamblerKi is not even aware why 1020 bar is not a continuation of a long trend, he or she simply draws the line following your ridiculous idea about the VE's and zones. A typical chart produced by the likes of Spydertrader, Gucci, Mak et al. It has no substance or anticipatory value. You are complementing a failure. An outsider looking at all this mockery may come to the wrong conclusion that there may be something going on, given the number of posts, threads and sheer duration of this masquerade. There is absolutely nothing going on. Not a f-ing thing.Quote from jack hershey:
My comments to the chart poster were complimentary only. I felt his monitoring was leading to excellence analysiss, decision making and taking timely action, ie, on his trading fractal all trades would be profit taking segments.
Do mean that sometimes volume leads, and other times volume is simultaneous with the price, or you mean that sometimes price leads the volume too? Could you post a 5 minute ES chart where the volume trails the price, showing at least half a day of preceding bars? It should be a good basis for you to prove your point and for Jack Hershey to refute it.Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:
... Volume doesn't lead price all the time, it does only on some occasions. ...
Do you mean that there was a situation where over more than two days all the price bars where HH and HL (or LL and LH) while the volume apparently kept randomly increasing and decreasing? If you don't mind, could you re-post that chart, or a link to it? Thanks.Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:
... The trend took more then two days to complete, so the number of fractals is more then 7. ...
I see. Neb seems to be familiar with Hershey's method. Pointing out a clear example that refutes the "volume leads price" might settle this argument, at least in some minds.Quote from SnakeEYE:
5 min TF is too small to look at the volume,b/c 5 min TF is so full of losers - hershey followers.
Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:
Your blue comments show that I was not able to communicate with you.
You are a generic example of those with whom I have failed to communicate. Thus I have a problem with imparting salient information to others such as you. You have no faults as you have made clear.
The result is that I am unable to show you how to become waelthy in a short time as others unlike you have managed to do.
I assume many others have supported your learning and that you have some sort of approach and methodology that serves you well. It may be worth your while to develop a readership for your offerings. My readership is, I'm sure, enjoying your commentary and they understand, quite well, my failures to communicate to you.
Below are some of these failures I have committed.
I used nested and it was understood as a serial term instead of a concurrent term. My bad in using nested to convey a thought that is like the Russian wooden dolls which fit within another in a volumetric sense. I only look at the crossection of the dolls and see their boundaries as one within another all there at the same time.
I missed on communicating that time, in the study of markets is misplaced and instead there is an order of events. You see fractals as happeming serially and I see all fractals as ever present and never ending.
You understand how for you time passes and from day to day fractals begin and end. FBO's mean something to you and after one, making money is a concern. Certainly, we disagree on how we make money and you see the applications we do as losing money. Generally our approach is done by the importance of the set and ranking in the set of principles. I have failed to communicate this to people who have your personal characterisitics. I believe the majority of readers are like you. I am in the minority as is each promulgator of any particular methodology. The majority does not have a particular methodology.
You represent the majority to whom no one can advocate a particular method. I am a failure in communicating what is required for you to become wealthy.
I believe we can easily agree that what I communicate does not work in any way whatsoever for you. Fortunately, you have, briefly, explained your position so others can understand where you are coming from. I, at great length over 53 years, have continued to answer questions of others who wish to learn and to trade successfully. Many have succeeded and passed it forward to others. They also contribute time and money to help solve local problems.
If you ever come up with some questions, ask them and maybe someone will be able to help you out.