Hero: Not sure where some of your insight came from regarding BBT & Tapes, but perhaps the attached pdf will simplify the construction process for other readers. Also your wording "equal and opposite" should be changed. Equal and opposite as you're describing merely means a complete channel construction, i.e p1, p2, p3, & an end. Additionally, you say each BBT MUST contain a complete volume sequence. This is possible only SUBJECTIVELY, since a BBT can contain 2 bars (minimum) where a volume sequence contains exactly 4 segments with one segment consisting of 2 specific components. Just saying.
You bring up a good point, and I think this is one of the primary difficulties in trying to discuss these concepts via forums. It is very difficult to lay out vocabulary which is defined thoroughly enough to have the same meaning for multiple people. By "equal and opposite", I mean that BBT 2 must at a minimum mirror the construct of BBT 1 to advance the tape. So, if FC 1 consists of two bars, of which the second has FTT'd the FC, and then we have a BO, this will be assigned as our BBT 1. Then, the requirements for BBT 2 will merely to have a minimum of two bars and an FTT of the container to advance the Tape to leg 3. However, BBT 1 sets the standard for the Tape, pace changes non-withstanding, so if a simple FC up meets requirements to BO the previous Tape [P2 outside RTL & visible IV], then completes itself, but we can't form an equal and opposite simple BBT 2 [as in the case earlier when it had no FTT], BBT 1 by necessity continues and may possibly become a complex container providing it has IV with it's return to dominance [as it did earlier today]. Only then MUST the following BBT 2 and BBT 3 containers contain a full volume sequence. So then, once there is additional IV after a return to dominance within a single BBT 1, the requirements for BBT 2 and BBT 3 now upgrade to a requirement of complexity where there is a resolution of a full volume sequence, not merely an FTT'd FC or container. Discussing the specifics through text makes things sound incredibly complicated imo. I think most people learn this best by annotating and studying situations where they didn't know exactly what was supposed to come next, and perhaps comparing/discussing images of those annotated containers with others. Hope that helps.
I disagree with your explanation of how BBTs (and therefore tapes too) are constructed. At least we are comparing some notes. Noone has a monopoly on information or knowledge. Success to you.
It is really helpful to have different perspectives on this subject. Different emphasis, different vocabularies, stretch my understanding. I hope that the opinions of successful practitioners of the method, even if they differ from those of the O.P. will continue. The generosity of both are much appreciated. If there are contradictions between experts, it cant be any more confusing than the contradictions that already exist in my own mind after studying the iterations of Jack and Spyder. I dont think there is a requirement that all differences be resolved. I for one would hate to lose the contributions of anyone who has managed to put it all together.
I agree. Don't get me wrong; if someone develops their understanding to the point at which they are consistently profitable; the additional refinements are somewhat of a luxury. However, from what I've seen of everyone who has advanced far enough towards always being in a place of certainty at the sequences on various fractals on a bar by bar basis eventually ends up seeing the same thing. Jack and Spyder may have used different vocabulary words than each other, or myself, but there exists only one objective reality of how the market operates, and they both learned to see the same thing. I have no desire for debate, but if you disagree with these principles I've laid out, and you do truly have and understanding of when all fractals must end and why in real-time, your disagreement is likely due to an imperfect communication on my part, especially due to the aforementioned problem with the necessity of creating vocabulary words to describe Fractal Theory. Despite that we may use different words for different concepts, these principles I've attempted to lay out are the basis for how all trends are built without exception. I don't advise anyone to take my words for it, but to continue to conduct testing to the point where there is no more uncertainty, which is possible, although it seems an absurd or misunderstood belief to most. If you understand beyond a doubt as they are forming that Bar 6 [on NQ today] creates the first FC of the first dominant BBT of an Up-Tape, Bar 17 forms the First FC of BBT 2 of the Up-Tape, Bar 26 forms the first FC of BBT 3, and Bar 48 begins the first FC of our Down-Tape, there is nothing to disagree about. Only one system of coherent, logical, and fractal system of annotation will bring you to that conclusion, and it's the system which was developed by Jack Hershey which I've attempted to re-iterate once again.
There is no debate from me. The documents of JH and Spyder that I provided on the topic of tapes and channel construction specifically, are for all to consider. Confidence and comfortableness with the methods one uses to extract that which the markets offer is a necessity. Carry On.
Regarding exhibits 6-2, can you please clarify something for me. When the 2nd FC-up fails to make an opposite FC-down starting at 9:45 (since 9:50 went higher than 9:40) this is a signal that BBT1 is ending? Or is that just a possibility as was the 9:15 bar? In other words is there something special about this being the 2nd attempt to create an equal and opposite FC ? (Sorry if I haven't read the bar times correctly).
Great question; I've attempted to answer what I understand you're asking. Two things come to mind. 1. We need always to resolve all fractals lower than the one we are trying to complete before we can possible have an FTT for it. I've tried to illustrate this in the attached image. 2. For BBT's and especially Tapes [as I've defined them, perhaps differently from the PDF guide], after we have sufficient sequences, we start looking for a change in volume dominance. See Image [5-15] Relative Volume for some of these. Also, study laterals and formations which occur after sufficiency is reached and you will find that certain types of those can also act as change sequences. The final bar paired shown in this image qualifies for a BBT FTT in both cases and finally begins BBT 2. Hope that helps.
You can just keep applying the same exact principles to an increasingly larger scale. The base set of principles on how FCs are annotated and how the volume sequences unfold within them is fractal in nature.