Ezzy

Yes, again, it is difficult. You know what you need as a minimum, but not the maximum. To know for sure, yes, hindsight. Refer to posts #369 and #2298. In real time, that's the hard part, application. The drawings are an ideal, it shows the sequences needed. In real time the market doesn't paint a perfect picture, the sequences stretch and shrink. If the pace changes you may not see each fractal piece. I'm not being a dick when I say it won't click for most. Generally we're taught "this is the formula to solve a problem", or "this is how you build a house," or "this code will do that." It looks the same each time. With this method, what "appears" to be the same changes regularly, daily and throughout the day depending on the market. It's a difficult concept for most to accept, even more so to apply.

Think I mention this before, you'll get more help if you post a chart that you have annotated. It shows that you have done some of the work rather than reading and people can see where you're at. And you'll probably answer some of your own questions. For some it won't click. Equal weight isn't an equal number of bars or period of time. It can be a few bars or a couple of days. That may be the issue as it's hard to see an 8 or 16 hour move being equal to one that takes an hour. Think about what it takes to have a completed container. For example 1,2,3, FTT on price and completed volume sequence. So let's say this is a tape or a BBT or whatever level you call it, doesn't matter. If you built a dominant one, you now need an equal non-dom. If that doesn't happen, and the move continues dominant. What is that first container called now? What happens to it? If you built a dom tape, and a non-dom tape doesn't happen, you can't be at pt3 of a traverse. You still need to build a non-dom tape. This applies to all your levels. That is why Todd mentioned that the market sometimes transmits information in a relative way. Now add in the market accelerating and decelerating changing what you've built. And sequences extending. See the posts around Oct 14 or 15, 2010 channel drill. It can be quite difficult as times. Thanks for posting the chart. It would be helpful if you could point out where he jumped fractals. It looks like for a good part of the day in RT he was on. Since we may see things a bit differently I can 't speak to exactly where you were talking about, and of course as things unfolded and moved there isn't just one point. So if you have a correction or clarification to my comments please post them. Monkman: In my view, after the initial pt3 down at 11:25, if what you thought you had built was a dom tape down, there was never an equal weight opposing tape. Though at several times it may have looked that way, initially. The check is "did you get an equal weight container" after. Instead there was fanning and extending until finally the RTL break. And after the RTL BO there wasn't a tape up to validate your tape down. If there was, then you still need another tape down. Hope that helps. Regards, EZ

Fashionably late. This should cover it:

This will explain where Jack was going with it: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/misc.invest.technical/MepKxK6hbpk His typical MO, starting at a base line and adding layers. He's done the same with indicators, just how he teaches. Call it a learning tool, training wheels or drill.

Spydertrader once told me that "if you can't see the cycle on the 15m you're trading at too fine a level." It may not always help during real time but sometimes zooming out helps regain perspective when things get slow or sideways (fanning) and you find yourself zooming in (to the 2min YM or 1min ES). At least in my case, when things got confusing I'd get stuck looking closer and closer instead of the bigger picture. Regards, EZ

Click link, scroll down to "slow download" for the free download. 2009_Channel_Drill_15m.rar - download now for free. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. FileFactory.com 2009_Channel_Drill_ES.rar - download now for free. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. FileFactory.com 2009_Channel_Drill_YM.rar - download now for free. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. FileFactory.com

If you start a thread on their site, a wish list thread, let us know so we can all add our 2 cents. I suppose it would depend on how they codded their drawing objects. But you'd think it would be an extension of how the were able to de-gap price. But not my forte. Regards - EZ

The pace lines in TN really don't follow MAK's chart. Without going into too much detail I initially tried to modified some of the pace lines in TN to get a more uniform spread, then ended up just added an extra one for extreme pace and calling it good. Initially Jack eyeballed the lines. MAK gave us the chart and we went from having slow, medium, fast and dry up lines to deciles. I wouldn't over emphasize them, or try to say a certain container level/fractal is always at a certain pace. The Ninja pace lines are going to be more accurate than TN. By scrambling. Hope you have more luck this time around. There was a whole list of potential changes at one time, auto shifting the lines being one of them. They did a few of them but it's been ages since. Regards - EZ

Typically you have a significant volume drop off in a lateral. Almost like the market is taking a break, the sequences on that fractal sort of stop working. Everything within is sub fractal. Start here, good stuff: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/technical-analysis/6320-price-volume-relationship-39.html#post90682 So you could ask if your sequences for that fractal are still continuing? If they are maybe you don't need the lateral. In your example you could extend the lateral, or you could cut it short. You might find other things later, besides 2 closes outside (unless the 2 closes are a formation) that terminate laterals. Or circumstances like the post referenced above where you don't annotate a lateral. Don't be too rigid, try breaking a few rules - see if it helps. Regards, EZ

AFAIK there hasn't been an update, just the original set. If you don't have them at all find the instructions here: Forums - Software Used to Trade Jack Hershey Methods

1. Points and % up/down since previous days close. 2. They were coded wrong, TN fixed it, you might prefer the boxes or arrows for a more accurate reading. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2689724 3. It's a division of time shading, pretty sure it was 5 minute periods, so you'd know where it lined up with the start/end of a 5 min bar. Regards, EZ

I agree with cmns2 regarding the acceleration, and also deceleration. That was also a transition into breaking out the fractals. Remember each pt1 to pt2 needs an R2R or B2B, and 2 to 3 needs a 2X and so on. You'll find places where the original lines where accelerated and decelerated. The laterals were handled a little differently so allow for that. Also the charts weren't de-gapped so a new point one might be an acceleration or deceleration point from the prior day. I only have one unannotated chart handy, it's the 15th of Oct but has the prior day's peak which may add a little more perspective to your first pt2. Regards - EZ

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f32/ideal-volume-channel-up-down-5920.html#post64634 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f32/ideal-volume-channel-up-down-5920.html#post65477 Might be better off starting with the original threads at the elite trader site. Probably not.

It's good advice. He also said: Maybe a similar thing is going on with your analysis?: See my first reply.

With my current understanding I disagree. Binary yes, rules no. But some may argue that it's a set of binary rules. It was in reference to a different chart that didn't have a lateral. In the other chart with a lateral, following the lateral rules there are two places they can be drawn in. Whether they are valid or at what point they end was a part of the issue. Many times I was told "do not make this into a rule." I understand that now, trying to pass it along. The rules upon rules with qualifiers thing was a hindrance. Because you were creating rules to apply to this section, yes, but also in general. Could remove "this case." Start the thick from the get go because it's what you are building next regardless of how many sub fractals show up. No, not saying that. I have seen too many examples of certain sacred unbreakable rules being broken to state something so absolute. If you find that it works for you, great, go with it. It might work out that way most of the time. For me it immediately brings to mind a chart where I know it doesn't work out. So maybe another rule is added to account for that, or you find a different way to look at it. Just my worth what you paid for it. Regards, EZ

You're not going to like this, but rules will get you into trouble. There are too many examples to go into, here's one: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-144.html#post116745 For this case IMO you need to observe what the market is doing. Not that it conforms to a specific rule set. We've been warned against making rules vs. guidelines because rules don't allow you to account for other contexts you may not have considered. So more questions: If you see sub-fractals on one leg is it a requirement that you see them on all legs? Or see the same amount (or levels) of sub fractals on each leg? That may or may not be helpful as you test your theory:

FWIW, I don't believe that will prove to be a reliable hypothesis. Careful with assumptions.

There is what appears to be a discrepancy between the thick gaussian pt3 and the price annotated pt3. Why? What happened?

Here's one to add to the group above. It's the YM.

Charts for the period around 4-28-09 for SK0. Both with and without the gaps. The 5min chart has the volume cropped to better see the majority of the bars. The pace lines don't adjust when the the time period changes, so they aren't accurate on the other time periods. The top green pace line is additional and different coding from the original six normally on the chart.

Not saying anyone is wrong here. I know the chart well (and know you do too ), it's a very good example to bring up. Spydertrader gave start and end points for the channel as well as a lot of guidance over several days during in that period. Never came right out and said that leg was a traverse - but yes it is. There is a minor point to be brought out. Many times someone gets help on an area, working on a certain aspect of where they're at, and it might conflict with what someone else understood on the same area. For some hearing "so-and-so said" turns off thinking as something gets blindly accepted instead of thought through, and then made into a hard and fast rule. Spydertrader has been trying to teach us how to figure things out on our own. Because when the chart, or context changes the answer will change. Great examples of that here. On the prior traverse:

It is extremely difficult to give any answers of value unless there is a fully annotated chart. There is no context, no pace levels, time of day, lines from the previous traverse, etc. The answer will depend on context, and how you define a traverse. Otherwise what is appropriate here may not work in other areas. Did Spydertrader actually say that leg was a traverse? If it is in fact a traverse, was there any extraordinary context or event? How did the prior traverse form? There was a drill about that in this thread. If there wasn't any dominance then how would you have a traverse? Do you see it on any of the legs? Could there be a context issue? Could there be another indicator of dominance other than what you're looking for? Maybe a fully annotated chart would help? At one time Spydertrader kept saying "forget what you know" when someone got stuck. Maybe it's applicable here? Don't know, just throwing that out in case something from the past is preventing you from seeing it.

There was a brief mention (Vegas Expo?) about not drawing a trough to the 2nd bar of a pennant, but that may have been context specific and would take a long time to find - project for another time. That wasn't considered for Frenchfry's example but thought it was worth mentioning. Interesting chart to bring up BTW. We've already seen a couple ways to annotate to the end, one being to 11:30 and the other 11:45. It's been done both ways on similar charts. And since 11:45 is an OB thought Frenchfry might appreciate this next chart. Attached is a train wreck of a chart that was revised many times, several of us worked together on this one and we had some guidance from Spydertrader. That does not mean in any way that it's correctly annotated and there are no gaussians on the chart. They were done on paper - have to do your own. Thought it might be helpful to pass it along so it could torment a whole new group. In this version the OB at 15:15 finished the up traverse. It's a tough one to see that and fit it in to a particular rule set or view on containers. A bit different from the OB on jbarnby's chart. If it gives anyone fits blame him for bringing it up. The OB returns to the dominant direction, it's not changing dominance or continuing the non-dom move (no increasing volume) - just an observation. So another bar would be helpful in this particular case. While there is nothing wrong with putting both sets of lines in, there was a discussion on ET about taping to an OB. Though that example doesn't apply here (in case you wanted to look it up). An OB may have a b2b or r2r within it, and probably a 2x here if you go fine enough, but in this specific situation it's probably not anything to worry about. As far as looking at the YM or finer tools, usually if you have to do that it's not on a fractal you need to be concerned about. That's if you're sticking to the 5min only for trading. This speaks directly to issues people have with fractal jumping and trying to make a traverse or channel out of couple sub-sub tape level moves. Of course it's helpful at times to help see things, and in certain cases it may be necessary to see something that has bearing on the 5 min, but those are very rare cases. If you have it down on the 5 min then by all means run wild with the YM, keeping in mind you may need to use other fine tools at that level. Not that anyone has to stick with any particular level.

For the fractal you're working on, starting with the 10 cases, the first container you can draw is extended and fanned up through bar 9. Everything so far has been contained by the RTL, fanning all the way. There is a question on the pennant but it doesn't cause a down container for this fractal. What about the OB? It's decreasing volume so I'd be suspicious. As with the pennant waiting for another bar can help. You have 2 preliminary lines drawn with the OB for a possible down container. Please draw in the point 2 to point 3 non-dominant container that's annotated here. What bar is point 2 and what bar is point 3? The start of taping discussion: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/34/price-volume-relationship-6320-2.html#post70161

A peak which may or may not be the actual highest volume bar. Yes, using bar one as bar zero as noted in your clip. Might be easier to start with the first bar as bar one. Just nit picking, but it threw me off at first. We don't know because there is nothing prior, no context. If it's non-dom tape of a traverse then we already went 1 to 2 of a traverse, and now there is some context, we're building 2 to 3. By the volatility and volume of the first bar compared to the others, it appears to be the start of a dominant leg of something on some level. But we don't know yet, and we have no context. It's just an assumption, a guess. Could be a pt1 to pt2 or pt3 to FTT leg of something. Right. The sym pennant may be a non-dom move on some fractal, so far it's just an internal considered as one bar. You really need another bar to properly annotate it and see if it has any bearing on this fractal, or if you need to even bother annotating it. If you do annotate, it's not done on this fractal. If you were on smaller fractals there are probably a couple more before this. None of them matter. Now your gaussian example #1, the gaussian indicates bar 7 is the end of B2B (an ftt of some sort) and the next 2 bars are 2R. Bar 9 continued to move in the dominant direction and you can't annotate a non-dom container across those bars. You are annotating something in the volume pane that you can't annotate in the price pane. Nothing wrong with doing that in general, just don't let it confuse which fractal you're on - easy to do. In this case it may be an incorrect annotation as well. The current convention is to annotate to the peak of the move. IMO that provides more clarity. At one time it was common to annotate the dominant gaussian to the volume peak and start annotating non-dom as soon as the volume bars decreased. Consider that if you looked on smaller fractals you might see dominance continue until the top of bar 9. That's what Pr0crast was getting at in a recent post. The decreasing volume may give you a clue that the move is running out of steam and near a peak, but it does not indicate you have had actual change. As a side note let's take the example 2, even though you changed it, initially the gaussian showed R2R from bars 7 to 9. Lets assume you believe example 1 is possible and prefer to annotate old school style. Then example 2 as an R2R might also be possible. I saw an unusual example of an R2R annotated in such a fashion (only once), where the 1st bar of the pennant was an ftt and the start of a post pt3 lateral - black dominant. An IBGS made a higher high later in the lateral and was annotated as 2R of an R2R. Now this could have been an error (yes it's possible), or a special context, or maybe it was correct on another fractal and carried over. But this doesn't work on all examples, or even most examples. So while we tend to require there to be hard and fast rules like: annotate to price peaks and troughs, pt2 is always outside the RTL, etc; keep an open mind, follow the sequences and the PV principles. Don't go changing or throwing out everything because something doesn't appear to work out properly in one area. (And no, I'm not going to dig up that one chart, it's insignificant) If you insist This whole time is focused on 1,2,3 for this container. Doesn't matter what it's called or what we're building yet, we can't trade it. It's the smallest visible container. We're looking for point 2 of the next larger container, then point 3, then ftt, where we can then look to enter or reverse. If bar zero is an ftt and point 1 then we are holding for a non-dom container, and then a dominant container at a minimum. Otherwise we would need to drop to a smaller fractal to trade this one.