Update : Well, after beginning this, I'm becoming aware that there will be much more scenarios in which I'll know how to react, than ones in which I'll find myself stuck. Then, and I don't know if it's what you sere saying @Simples in your last post, but I'll focus exclusively on the cases that I know are problematic for me. I'll only work and post on those scenarios, just because I already know the remaining cases. I will provide the generic cases and only deal with those that echoe more or less closely to an issue for me currently. It'll be shorter and more efficient.
For the first time ever, I feel like a real chart would help me more to know how to react when OB surges on any particular scenario. I just feel overwhelmed by dissecting things through differentiation at the moment AND I feel like I need to open a chart and log it and annotate it if I want to get where I want as for OB's which has been the case that prevented me to go forward into turns/trends ID. So, I'll retake my last chart and go with that, and face any OB scenario surging. Right now. I've not accomplished what I initially stated, but that partly-made path brought me a conviction : I'll be better at logging (OBs if I log OBs), rather than thinking on (OBs). I'm not saying what I just began as for the OB's matrix did not help me, it did help me a lot, but I feel there's no need to do that, it's just better and more efficient to think in front of a chart. I don't know what it is, but something new just happened to me. Like : from now, the answer you search is gonne be given to you by the market.
First scenario w/ context : Bar 1 will be Ab EE so 9:50. Bar 1 : P1 ass, BM long Bar 2: XB, T1 (gate for further BO,T1) Bar 3 : XB, P2 Bar 4 : XR, BO,T1 = P1, BM short Bar 5 : XB, T1, RepBM short. Bar 6 : XR, P2 Bar 7 : OB. I have what I want. Close is outside prior establised rtl, T1 is present, so BO,T1. So P1 is ass. AND it is an OB. So we have P1-T1 so we have PP4. Now, I see that scenario as : BO,T1 takes precedence so the P1ass absorbs the P1/T1 given by PP4. "Absorbs" = does not appear on the log. In upper row, I would put P1ass. On lower row, being as we've PP4 that assigns P1 to next row, we have another P1ass. So maybe I understand now why the "AND PP4" . So in terms of log I see : So, I DD the OB in itself describes a long trend AND and when it's EOB we know a new short trend is beginning once again. So I'd put two BMs, there are two P1s. What would be the difference (from what I can DD at the moment) if for any given reason, P1 had been assigned from previously, to bar 7 ? I would have seen in terms of log : Conclusion : for now what I DD is that the difference comes from the precedence that BO,T1 does take.
The next of the chart : Bar 1 is 10:45. There was a BO,T1 on prior bar, and close of n bar is outside prior established rtl so BO,T1 = P1ass. Bar 1 : BO,T1 Bar 2 : XR, P1rep Bar 3 : XB, T1 (gate for BO,T1). Close is outside ON T1 so I'd say we have BO,T1 here. There is something fuzzy with the "you need T1 present to have a BO,T1". It needs more precision : you need T1 before ? OR you need T1 before BO or ON BO ? Logically, I'd say the second option. So whether T1 is already present in the sequence or is present ON the bar breaking out, gate is open for BO,T1. Let's see if some cascading effect happens.
At an EE both a BM and rtl (if possible) are drawn pronto. Sometimes a rtl cannot be drawn from this point geometrically. This is distinct from when it can be drawn geometrically. We can call one a true rtl. Upto now you have been including non-true rtl’s as a way to define the fastest fractal tapes. What if you take the operating point of only drawing true rtl’s? Then with the requirement for BO,T1’s, what are the two necessary conditions that must be met for an EE to be considered a BO,T1?
Finally, we talk about this and it's a true pleasure. I feel very good that the moment to put this on the table has come. From what I believe that is true : The first condition is to have a T1 present in the trend. AND The second condition is to have a BO by the close, of the prior established rtl. As I said, I don't know if, when we have a BO On a T1, we have BO, T1. I'd say yes
I don't see this true anymore. I think I failed to understand what was true. Working on it and gonna post soon new and maybe better DDs.