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