Do you, among other places, refer to Laterals ? If you do, I just stick to Jack's "no rtl should be started inside a Lat". If you don't, I'll check in the last 3 sessions to begin, where BMs are placed and rtl's are not placed. AND If I don't find any of these situations, I'll have to learn/DD where I fail to understand the concept (= laws + rules) of " a rtl can begin from here". Hope you're doing well, thanks for the comment !
Hmm yes I get you. It did not take me long to see what you say. Let's have 3 examples : Ex 1 Here, clearly, it's an ommission from me. BM is placed on bar 2 whereas I started the rtl from prior bar. I attribute this kind of error to the rythm of work I impose to myself : 2 logs and their debriefs a day. I may want to rush it a bit too much. No need to rush. Ex 2 Here is a more tricky case. Bar one (yellow) is Lat10 and it's the functional end of the Lat. As seen in the litterature, a Lat does end at the second close outside its boundaries. So, when Lat10 comes and ends, although we "see" a rtl from its low linking next bar's low, I always decide to wait next bar and from it, begin to draw rtl as this next bar, by being the technical end of the Lat, we're still not in a Lat and then, rtl can be drawn. If your advice is that I should not stick to JH's "no rtl should be drawn inside a Lat", let me know and I'll follow it. Ex 3 On the purple OB, there's a BM long. As next bar is Hitch, we can't draw rtl from this OB. When XB comes, then a P1 is assigned to it due to prior PP4. Effectively, I can drawn a rtl from yellow Hitch's low to XB's low. The thing is that, a long rtl was already existing. It's the one we can see touching Hitch's low. Being as next bars are included inside of it, I do not draw any new rtl, as there's already one. I feel, maybe wrongly, that if I did not draw rtl each time this happens, it's because of my current misunderstanding (or partly understanding) of the fractals. No big deal, I'll just let this aside for now, as I'm sure it'll be solved by entering into more differenciation and refinement after the 20 sessions are made. Thanks a lot ! Applying my DD's right now.
Building the following, I think I answered by myself to my own question. If my FF and TF are correctly IDd, then on Bar7, yes there would be BO,T1 at the FF level, and not at the TF level. Again :
Here is an interesting case : Bar 1 has a PP! EE towards short. This bar, due to having an EE as a BM. Bar 2 allows by its form to draw a rtl from prior bar. We have a rtl. AND, being as prior bar had a PP! EE, bar 2 receives its P1ass and we wait for next bar to see if another rtl can be drawn from it in order to stick to "draw every rtl ASAP when possible". Bar 3 is a SYM. Conceptually, a SYM is an INT which means (if vol is DEC, which is the case here believe me) that there is no significant statistic measure that can be made from. So, when an INT comes along, we fan prior established rtl. In our case, if we do so, of course bar 3 is included into it. Obvious. Or, being as there's a BM on bar2's high, we are to draw once again a new rtl if possible, ASAP. My current DD is that if when an INT comes along, one is to fan so include it inside prior established rtl, one can also begin a rtl from any H/L of two price bars that are any sort of INT. By doing any of the two ways described above, we get the same result. What I wondered was : what if by using the new rtl drawn from bar2's high linking bar3's high, this rtl affects what is next ? And the market said : In this wase, when the XB comes : - if we use the first established rtl, we have BO,T1 cause we have T1 in volume sequence, and a BO. - if we use the last established rtl, we do not have BO,T1. So, I went back, and DDd : - one is to draw a rtl ASAP when possible. - so one is to consider last established rtl for its BO,T1 - then, by knowing wich fractal level this happens, one can DD the level of BO or not, it is. I'll stick to that firstly cause as I can see it, it deals with fractal levels which becomes to be like an area coming back quite often recently. I can't wait to be clear with that. Waiting for that moment, I'll continue my MADA road considering every time the last established rtl for the BO,T1. A bit like.....I've always, unconsciously considered last established BM (there are two BM's on [PP!s/C...K-bands]EE's, one for the EE and another one for the P1 assigned on next bar) for BMrev.... lol
Exceptionnally, I need to go out. I'll be finishing 12th session' debrief when back. Concerning the errors encountered during debrief, my being and mindset are currently switching from a "I hope I won't find any error as it will mean I did it good AND I'll can log next chart sooner" to a "so great to find an error to re-ID, I'm getting better and I'm saving time for next chart" mindset. The ability to see a scenario from another POV which creates another perception and leads to a re-ID, whether the first correction is good or not, demonstrates a nice flow, a good dynamic that I appreciate from me a lot. This is an amazingly good feeling. See you later
Ex2 is a situation that presents a BO lat10. This is a BO bar. If one squished all bars between Lat10 into lat1 then lat10 would be an XB. Internals are opportunities to squish bars this is also logged. Each squish is logged, each internal is a ‘wait’ on decreasing volume. An internal fans a rtl provided that it did not activate a FS. A FS takes precedence. A FS is also logged in the same column as UL, SQU, FS. Increasing differentiation is not a mistake. It is the assimilation of new information and re-applying that to past decisions to achieve a different result.
Wow, then the UL/Deg column will be sometimes nicely filled. Ok, thanks Yes, this is perfectly clear for me from a while now. I apply to my logs each time and as you told me recently, squishing INT provides so much clarity ! I had missed this, the logging action of squish. I'll do it from now. Of course, more than clear for me nowadays. I surely have to DD from this if it's logic or not to draw a rtl from a given bar which is not INT and that has a BM and/or a P1ass, and link it (so it would be established) to next bar when this next bar is a wait. I'll think about it. I also have to DD if what is between the lines here, is that this bar would receive BM and P1ass and be considered as any EE. If it would do, then I don't know for now which it would be, although when I see BO I think directly of BO,T1. But I also know BO,T1 needs more conditions than a simple BO of an established rtl which, in a Lat case, is flat. Also have to think about it and DD. Thanks a lot for not answering me directly and making me save time
After thinking about it a bit, that's an artefact of my current DD : - What is an INT ? : one fo the 7 price cases that do not make money. All are squished, whether measure or not. - What is a wait ? : it's an INT on DEC volume. - In terms of statistical data, what does this mean ? : we have no signifiance, statistically speaking. We must like ignore, not take into a count this data. - Then what happens when an INT wait surges after a rtl is established ? : one fans it - then what happens when an INT wait surges just after a P1 is assigned ?... - ....Some steps back - what does a INT wait mean statistically speaking ? : the data is not significant - is it logic then to adjust prior established rtl in order to include it ? : yes - what would it mean if one USED a wait as second bar to create a rtl ? : one would use a non statistically significant data to establish something that can resist even...to degap ! ("rtl's are good enough") - then, is it logic to use a wait as second bar to build a rtl ? : NO. - therefore, when can this rtl, starting from the bar with P1ass, be established ? : when 3rd bar comes Current DD : when just after a P1ass and/or a BM, one has an INT wait, one can't use it to define a rtl. 3rd bar will determine it. So, if the third bar triggers a FS, it could only be a BMrev.
Here is part 1. PART 1 Notes : 1- As bar 7 is LAT BO and I'm not clear yet wih whether this bar needs a BM or not, I've waited until bar 8 comes and built a long TF. I don't know if this is correct yet. Need to work and DD. 2- I'm not clear a 100% yet on PP1b. Plus, I've noticed that recently I had said from now PP1c will be INT-T1-P2 and PP1b will be 3 T2P's w/acc. I notice I have not respected it. Rereading my notes, I've seen I had PP1b = 3T2P's w/acc and I had put a cross on the "b" and had replaced it by a c. There is a reason for that, I must have seen or DD something in the past that made me think there was an error and finally, PP1b was IN-T1-P2 and PP1c was 3T2P's w/acc. In addition to that, I've followed the advice and watched the handwritten version of the PP!sheet, and it confirms it. PP1c is 3 T2P's w/acc. With that said, I know I'm not clear a 100% with the PP1b as I've doubts about where the INT can be in the sequence. From the description, I can DD that INT must be before T1. No ADD Req leads me to DD the INT prior to T1 can be on the P1. Or we would have in Add Req something like "P1 and INT must be different" or so. But as currently see my level of differenciation increasing, I know by experience if I can tell, that this comprehension is not to be crystallized. It may be temporary. And finally, when I'm in a Lat, I wonder when a bar comes that creates a non-INT PC combined with all prior squishs with Lat 1, if this bar is still an INT. From a certain POV I'd say no it's not an INT being as it's either an OB, an XR or an XB. And from another POV I'd say yes it's still an INT being as it's a Lat"x". This leads me to ID many PP1b into Lats that are, maybe, not existing. To finish, on the only PP1b IDd on the chart of this post : for if it's not easy to see it, this bar exceeds the highest T1. Then it's a P2 and being as I've had an INT before the T1 I see a PP1b. I just have to say that, at my current level, I would not have known what to ID between PP1b and PP3 if bar 10:50 had been between the two T1's. PP3 would not be killed as, precisely to be killed the INT must be after the first T1. And in the "rather this than that" battle, I wouldn't be able to decide whether it's more a PP1b or a PP3.