When a Lateral is true, the internal bars of the lateral are known as Lat1, lat2, lat3, etc. not the price cases. It’s only when the Lateral ends does one go back to logging the Price Cases. All bars are degapped. As Jack has explicitly mentioned several times and in several ways, degapping is a requirement for RDBMS. Conceptually all bars within a lateral reduce the number of bars to a single bar - Lat1. This is true until Lateral is false. Internals are waits and squished into the prior bar and the following bar if Lateral is false is compared to the resultant squished bar.
Your approach to shifting the lateral boundaries to degap the current bar is understandable. Jack does it on his charts by shifting the BM. Anyway you do it will work as long as the current bar is degapped consistently and all the references are appropriately accounted for. As for laterals, perhaps another way to view it is the relationship of the 30m bar composed of 6 5m bars. Just think about it. As for the rtl, regardless of lateral or not, if it's possible to annotate, annotate it. One must think about it's function in it's relationship to the BM and the FS's. Some laterals have enough of volatility to trade within them, others do not. Any differences of opinion have more to do with the context by which one came across the material vs using the distinctions in realtime. What is the one observable quality that differentiates the two scenarios? As for the three arrows, there is more to distinguish, just keep logging and refining. Use the market as your ultimate debrief. What is a way of thinking about the problem at hand that can apply the distinction of the long diagonal of the parallelogram to extract the market's full offer? The containers you construct arise from your distinctions and your distinctions are getting finer and finer to the point of anticipation. Anticipation occurs in real-time, and it not constrained to act on EOB.
About your reminder: It's interesting to observe your reasoning, thought process and conclusions. On one hand there is ample reference about a thing and the other hand a single reference to something else. While it is true that Jack's work is a comprehensive and complete system and as such any input will produce an output. Degapping is a core concept to RDBMS. Without it one will still get outputs but not at the same precision as with it. It is true that his earlier work only had it applied in limited circumstances. What is also true is that he was a proponent of iterative refinement and allowed his thinking to be flexible and expand beyond his earlier conclusions. These comments are directed less specifically to @tiddlywinks for we all know your thinking on the matter, the work that you've shared and the conclusions reached. These comments are more-so to others whom travel the path less followed and begin their own work of self-determination, self-reliance and Self-illumination based on their own DD.
All is noted well @Sprout. In a nutshell, bar-by-bar degap(not to be confused with RTH opening) causes price-pane modifications not consistent with actual market pricing et al. My way of real-time MADA and trading uses a matching price-pane visual to the price bar data points using actual price. End of discussion.
From this I DD that when a bar is squished (because of a wait on it) into the prior one, then the next bar if Lateral is TRUE is NOT compared to the squished bar..being as it has not been squished. Although this provides clarity, at the same time I see I have to discover why you say : "internals are wait and squished". Cause as we know there are INT that are not wait, but UL. But I won't ask any question, and will simply log this question for myself, on my list and will find the answer. _____________________________________________________________________________ That would be a premature conclusion. There are other distinctions to apply; FS's, carving with Early Exits, Exits, Sidelining, etc,... I'll take a little break for now, and then I'll produce another post concerning all what gets me confused. I see now there's no reason to continue the MADA routine before exposing clearly the problems I see each time they happen. Again, another premature conclusion. The MADA routine is what will generate strength in repetition on what it is that you know that you do know. The minor details will sort themselves out. All of them have been addressed in prior posts. You, like many others, myself included, glance over the finer details when grasping the coarser concepts to move forward. It's just the lay of the land. There are times where I do not comment or withhold my comments for you haven't practiced enough with the distinctions on the table. For the answers you seek, there are none that exist outside of your sphere of control and DD. You have strengthen your logical reasoning and at times make assumptions that you do not re-evaluate. This is why having a log of questions, cross-referenced with answers, the literature and operating points is supportive of the process. Sometimes you have/will receive guidance that is incorrect or non applicable to your current level of differentiation. It's all well-meaning and not a malicious attempt to have you stray from the path. It's more an indication for you to understand and know where another is coming from and their own spectrum of differentiation. The main crux, I perceive you with you, is the growth of your own self-confidence. There is a lot fo truth in what you say. I know you're right. AND I also think you misunderstood my mindset when I posted my last posts. I was not trying to avoid anything, or to stop doing MADA for that I glance and dwell on little details. Here is what stimulated my last posts : I feel I'm getting better and better, finer and finer, holy yes I do ! And there's always a moment that comes when I see something that makes me confused, and it happens again, and again and it becomes clear to me I have to work on it. Lastly, I did notice the thing about squish, degap, Lat etc. I noticed it was something that was always coming back into my mind when the scenario was happening. Like for OB's a couple of weeks before today. If you remember (and I'm sure you do !) I was finding all the time bothered by OB's, and during some days in a row I stopped logging in order to have time for solving that OB's issues. I feel at ease now when OB surges. If I look back, all the times I did this kind of thing, I ended by being much more confident, knowledgefull and at ease with the cases in question. I mean...this is just work ! I don't have any other way to get my answers. What I'm trying to express, is simply that I want to address absolutely every single part of the method, in its entirety, and don't leave anything to chance. So when you see me stopping doing MADA and Logs for one, two or some days, it's not that I'm lazy or an unconscious manifestation of any lack of self-confidence, it's rather my self-confidence and strength growing up that leads me to feel ready to go through DD's which can be sometimes very hard. And you know it's hard, you've done it. Along the current week, I've worked between 8 and 11 hours each day. Today was a day off, I needed it, and in an hour I'll work a bit, something like 2 or 3 hours. Currently I see the relationship with the market as being a process in which there are times to log and do MADA (80% of the time) and moments for stepping a bit away from that in order to have time for reading litterature, trying to do some DD's, take a sheet of paper and a pencil and draw scenarios. Recently, I did this for Bands and OB's. The result is very satisfying. EDIT : I feel sometimes that I don't progress anymore, and I see I'm still unable to extract anything from the market. So I say to myself, there must be some problems not explored remaining still. When I find them, I both work on them on charts and logs AND conceptually which leads to my posts. With that said, and I hope you get me now, I feel one thing : more than anything, what you are saying is that the answers I'm seeking resides more than anything in doing logs and MADA. I find myself currently doing this 80% of the time. You seem to be telling me : just do it 100%. Do I get you right or not ? You know, all this path has already changed me a lot, deep. I'm not really the same person I was when I first stepped in all this. I will not enter into any psychological aspects or areas, and will just say that you can believe me when I say I'm trying to do absolutely everything I can to BE what one must BE to DO what is to be DONE for then HAVING what you're sure i'll soone HAVE.
I'd say volume Let me think about it, I'm unsure that I understand what you ask here Thanks a lot for still being here
One more thing @Sprout I understand very very well when you say that sometimes you do not comment for that I have not practiced enough on every distinction that is on the table and that has already been addressed. There is one thing I'd like / need to say about this : if we were 6 months in the past, I would not say what i'm gonna say now. Today I can tell : when you see me doing so, it's not intentional. It's never intentional, it's still not me playing myself a trick. It's just that I miss it because of being simply overwhelmed. I really, really, hope you understand what I'm saying here. AND If you can/want/accept/think it will support my process, feel free to expose all the distinctions that have already been adressed and that I have not practiced enough on. You can just mention them. More than one time, you've described me to other people in here and you've also done it to me, with high-quality words. I know what you think about me. I know you know how I am concerning my capacity of work, so be sure if you merely mention, anything that I've not practiced enough on, I'll work on it day and night. It can be some words for each distinction, a post# on my Journal, ANYTHING. I'm not avoiding any work anymore, and still not afraid of anything about the stuff. Ready to face anything
Let's dissect this and see what I can DD as for the current problem I have with squish, degap and Lats. When a Lateral is true, the internal bars of the lateral are known as Lat1, lat2, lat3, etc. not the price cases. - What is a Lat ? -> a PC including 3 bars in a row at least, with bar 1's H and L are the greatest/equal of the three bars'. - When is a Lat true ? -> When after a SYM, a FTP, a FBP, or a Hitch, a third bar comes with both its H&L are in the shadow of the first bar that created one of the four PC's above. - When is a Lat false ? -> when a Lat ends OR when a Lat does not begin. - When does a Lat end ? -> when there is at EOB a second close beyond the Lat's boundaries - When does a Lat not begin ? -> When any of the other 9 PC is true. - SO if when a Lat is true, so this means it does not not begin nor it ends, the internal bars of the Lat are not known as their appearing PCs -> when a Lat is false, the following bars are known as their PC's. - Are those bars to be squished into Lat 1 ? -> it depends - What does it depend on ? -> the context - Is there only one case/context from which we operate when in a Lat ? -> No, there are 2 - Which are they ? -> the first context is when Lat 4 exceeds in its length the Lat's boundary, the second one is when Lat4 is in the shadow - What will this create in terms of differentiation ?-> if Lat4 is not in the shadow of Lat1, retro will only be onwards from Lat4 included, whereas if it's in the shadow, retro will be backwards from Lat2 included. - What will this change as for the nature of each LatX ? -> a- if Lat4 is in the shadow, Lat 2 and Lat3, if were not measured, will be measured. So before Lat4 comes, we can have Lat 2 and Lat3 measured or not. If they are measured, they are not Internals cause Internals are wait, so they are Internals UL. And when Lat4 comes, there won't be any Internal cause all LatX will be measured so let's say "kind of UL". b- if Lat4 is not in the shadow, Lat2 and Lat3 will either remain measured (if they were so already)/non measured. So they will forever be Internals so wait because Internals are wait. - So, the measurement action of one absolute PC inside a Lat, will modify the nature of its "Internalness". If not measured, it will be an Internal = wait, if measured it will become an InternalUL. - What is an Internal ? -> either SYM, FTP, FBP, StR, StB, Hitch and Lat (special caseof INT) AND volume will not be measured. If they are not measured, they are internals so they are wait. If they are measured they are not Internal, they are Internal UL so they are not wait. - When do we squish ? -> we squish Internals, so we squish internals that are wait - Do we only have Internals that are wait inside a Lat ? -> it depends - What does it depend on ? -> the length of Lat4 compared to the Lat1 H&L. One more time : Internals are waits and squished into the prior bar and the following bar if Lateral is false is compared to the resultant squished bar. -So, Internal UL are not wait and not squished into the prior bar AND - So Internal are waits and squished into the prior bar and the following bar if Lateral is true is not compared to the resultant non-squished bar, so it is compared to the absolute n-1 bar position and form. Hmm.. I don't even understand what I just wrote. Let's draw a case for that : Let's say prior BM was short and Lat1 is P1 in volume. Lat 1 : Lat 2 : Internal so wait. Is Lat true ? No, so squish into Lat1. Lat 3 : Internal so wait. Is Lat true ? yes. So it is not compared to the Lat 1, but to Lat2, so Lat3 in terms of PC is StB Lat 4 : it is in the shadow of Lat1 so go back and measure : Lat 2 : T1, so still not Internal cause it's not wait cause we measure it now. So it is not squished into Lat1. Lat 3 : T1 repeat, so still not an Internal either. Is Lat true ? yes, so Lat3 is compared to Lat2 absolute position. So when the Lat ends, we'll have Lat3 = StB in PC terms. Lat 4 : P2, Lat is still true so we compare to absolute n-1 bar so Lat4 when Lat ends will be XR. Lat5 : Ab, P1 ass, XB Little earthquake in my mind. I feel what I just DD'd can't be true. Let's just log and receive answers from the market..
I just start and this is what I have, , and what appears clear to me is that : - when bar 2 appears, if one wants to consistently degap ALL of the bar, then one must move the BM AND the 30min doji. - when bar 5 comes, one must move n-1 bar upwards of 1 tick AND what I can hear very loudly into my mind is : then you have to move the rtl you just drew and you have to move all prior bars AND once again the initial BM AND the 30min doji. And let's be honest, I think this is undoable in real-time, it's really too complicated. BUT Being as we are talking about consistency, I'll be happy when I find how one can be consistent whithout doing what I said above. For now, I'm overwhelmed. I think I souldn't have begun to work tonight, I should have decided to let my brain a complete day off. Better to see all this tomorrow