Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.
frenchfry
-
Content Count
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by frenchfry
-
I see that both plantrader and gucci use different definitions for their containers (tapes, etc.). This leads to frustration on both sides because nobody understands what the other means or why he or she doesn't "get it". Step 1: Agree on the terminology. For example Jack's.... "The five pertinent levels are: Channels, Traverses, Tapes, and Building Blocks of Tapes (BBT's) , and sub building blocks."
-
How do they say...? "And not a single chart was posted."
-
EVERY bar has to be degapped according to Jack's current guidelines.
-
It's a pity that there is not more feedback from those who know more than me (which is easy). I didn't think it through what the best way (algorithm) would be to degap a chart. For the ES you should have seen some charts posted here and at ET where you don't have the extreme which you see on daily bars for stocks. Looks very useful for SCT. I can imagine that if your algorithm first adjusts the previous bar and then with every new bar it adds that bar to the previous bar to the adjusted bar and now moves those bars as a group up or down that you end up with what you show. I hope you understand what I mean. Tams/Tums would maybe have an idea what a good algorithm could be. But it probably doesn't matter if you get something completely different than what a normal chart would show you. The reason why you want to degap is because you want to identify the bar formations correctly to know if and when to use volume. Regarding Spyder's TN scan. Did Spyder make the password for the library public? I noticed that behavior, too. No results for several days. It is not that it doesn't work. It is just that the DU filter is too strict. That's not true either, because at the end Spyder knew what he was doing. His filter only shows stocks which are in DU whereas Jack does that later. Jack filters down the universe to a manageable hotlist via those filter criteria and ranking and then uses DU, FRV and Peak values for those stocks in the hotlist on the trading day in order to get in or stay out. At least that's the way I understand it. Hopefully you will get some more qualified feedback from those who actually use PVT on a daily basis.
-
There is a "Boolean Algebra inside" thread at ET where I tried to figure out how PVT works. I don't remember to have seen the requirement to de-gap the daily charts when you trade the PVT way. Neither in that thread nor in other documents or threads I read about it. The selection of stocks, their scoring/ranking and DU, FRV, Peak volume numbers are more important. De-gapping seems to be more important if you do SCT (especially the way Jack does it nowadays) where you need to identify price formations which tell you if you are allowed to use volume or not. That's two different ways of trading but I think you could apply SCT to stock trading as well in which case you definitively need to degap.
-
Hi cnms2, thank you for posting. But.... what are you trying to say? Thanks
-
Sorry! Didn't want to confuse you. Just take 14.15 as your Point 1. Next, show how your price containers and volume peaks and throughs move to and create a Point 2 of the channel. Next, show the next segment that moves to Point 3, etc. Pretend you are doing it in real time. You don't see anything else yet on the right side.
-
Sure. Looking at a chart after the fact and having all the price and volume bars available from "now" until the "future" you could make everything fit. But if you break it up into segments without having the bars on the right side available yet. Let's start with with the claim that a new channel starts 14.15 on October 13th. 1. How would you know at 14.15, 14.30, 15.10, whenever, that a NEW CHANNEL is starting? 2. Where is the FTT of the previous channel? 3. What do we "know" about volume at a Point 1, 2, 3 and FTT of a channel? 4. What do we know about a volume P1, T1, P2, T2, P3? 5. Where do you see those things in the previous channel leading us into the new channel at 14.15? 6. And at which time do you start to see each component happening in the new channel? 7. Would you come to different conclusions doing it real time because you follow the "Channel drawing guidelines" and the "Pattern"? 7. What happened at the end of the day on the 14th? How would you have known that the current channel of that day didn't finish already at that point? 8.How would you have known that what looked like the beginning of a new channel at the end of the day on October 15th is in fact not a complete channel? 9. How would you know at 10.30 on October 15th that the previous channel finally ended? Especially if you had to fan/re-adjust the channel because of what happened at the end of the day on the 14th? Good luck.
-
Interesting. Thanks. One question... How does volume "promote" a "container" from one level to a higher level? BBT to tape, tape to traverse, traverse to channel, etc. What criteria makes this happen? Change of pace from one level to the next (next two? Three?...) higher level? Or by volume being x-times higher than "y"? Time of day? etc.
-
How do you know that it is a traverse if you don't know why? Just because somebody said so? How many tapes/containers (dominant, non-dominant) do you need in order to create a "traverse"? Are those tapes/containers available in your "traverse" example?
-
Jack tries to explain it here: http://=http://tinyurl.com/bng2jhn
-
FilterTip, thanks for your summary! One question: How does volume fit in all of this? Do you use volume with all of those BBTs, tapes, etc.? Is volume actually needed?
-
Is there an annoted chart that shows that downtrend with all its containers? On one hand it doesn't matter how you call the containers but on the other hand it does when you annote and need to decide which one you are currently in and which one is being created next.
-
Interesting how the discussion went so far. Regarding the "new TN template", go to the other website (can I mention it here?). Search for "I did not redo that work." from "Jack Hershey". If I interpret what I think I see and "know" then I would say that here on TL you are still busy with drawing your channels and volume gaussian lines. Price first and then volume. In this case it probably doesn't matter if you degap intraday or not. Maybe. Jack, however looked for ways how to automate SCT. In this case your instructions to the computer have to be absolutely clear. No flaws, no anomalies. Channels? Gaussian lines!? Forget it. Therefore he looks into volume as the leading indicator. But in order to know if he is allowed to use the volume bar he needs to look at price which gives him permission to measure or not. In this scenario he thinks that it is absolutely necessary that price has to be degapped all the time! That is just my interpretation which is usually wrong. Therefore I recommend you ask those who know more for confirmation/clarification: Jack, baro-san, cnms, correy, and all the others hiding.
-
Look at the chart you posted. There is often a gap between the close and the open of the next bar. If you take the distance between the close and the open and then shift the previous bars up or down by that distance then you will get a new result. For example without degap you would see an FTP but when you shift the bars then suddenly you have a XB or a Sym. Does it matter? Theoretically, yes... could be. The funny thing is until recently everybody (most) didn't degap intra-bar and SCT still worked... or maybe that's why it didn't work? Maybe those like DB_sezwhat who degap intrabar since some time can share their experience?
-
Unfortunately, no. On ET you can see that he told me that I could/should get it but when I took him by his words he chickened out. If you look at his chart then you can see that you already have most of what he re-invented. It is basically all the cases and bar numbers. He changed the lateral annotation and added his "U's" as an indication that the bar gives permission to measure volume. I also see he marks the BO's. The rest he seems to add manually. Everything you see on his chart should be pretty easy for you to replicate. If then in addition you can get the intra-bar degapping to work, then you're the man. No... in fact... if you add an automatic volume annotation with PPs, bands LVBOs, HVBOs, T1s, etc. then you should have an automated SCT system. Just remember me when you don't need the system anymore.
-
Yes, I saw that. Instead to delete, they should move the content to chit chat. I hope some people archive what he posts. Just because I or others don't understand (at any given moment in time) what he writes, doesn't mean that what he posts is useless. Sometimes one is lucky and finds something that is (could be) interesting.
-
Degapped it's an OB
-
I think I see what you mean...
-
I understand what you mean and would agree with you and gucci here. Your "preliminary lines" comment could bring down my reasoning for creating a new slower fractal when I have bar 10 and the gaussians that I drew. Are you saying that even though I can/should draw two lines in opposite directions whenever I have an OB I still need to have the next bar after the OB to see which of the two lines is still valid and which of the two I can eliminate. In that case I would never have had a down tape and therefore I'm still in the same fractal. On the other hand some people could now say: "....look at the YM... look at finer tools... look at the 1 minute chart... etc." There we could probably see that the move from bar 9 to the low of the OB was a non-dom followed by a dom move to the top of the OB. Well... in this example I'm not using any of those finer tools (yet). If I would only look at volume (that's what I did in that example) then pt2 would be at that second volume peak (bar 7) and pt 3 at that volume through of bar 10. However if I would now try to use price only then pt2 would be the top of bar 9 and pt 3 the low of bar 10. That is because I would use the down lines between bar 9 and bar 10 as the down tape that I was looking for and the up lines between bar 9 and 10 as the new up tape that would have to come next. But as I said above what I did might not be valid and therefore I'm still in the same container (same fractal) that started with bar 0. If I'm still in the same container(fractal) then what must come next is a down tap followed by an up tape. We would then have the next slower fractal and would then be looking for the FTT of that slower fractal. Everybody agrees?
-
Even if my skinny tapes would be correct and still assuming that I would have done it the same way in real time, I would still have struggled (and still do) because I wouldn't have been able to read volume (gaussians). In theory IF the skinny tapes would be correct then the only thing left to do would be to simply draw the same lines that I used for the tapes down there in the volume pane. Correct? Thanks jbarny!
-
number 7... Damn... message to short again. Have to write more.....
-
number 6.... For the experts... your are always welcome. For those still learning... your opinions and questions are very important as well. For yourself and those in a similar situation as they offer everybody an opportunity to learn.
-
Continuing.... number 5c
-
You wrote "...in cnms2's chart..." enclosed is maybe not what you meant. The weights of the line are not an indication that we have two or more fractals it is still only one container (tape) potentially two tapes if I put bars 7 to 9 into containers. But you might have meant to show the fractals before my bar 0!? In this example I'm trying to build three fractals from scratch and on my way there show/use some of the excellent feedback that you, cnms and ezzy gave to breakeven on a real chart. At the same time I'm trying to correct my own misunderstanding and invite/stimulate others to check their own understanding. Thank you SK0!