Debrief of 16th MADA session on 09/12/19 - 22EE's IDd (probably low number of EE's due to almost encompassing the whole session Lat) NB : I've rehandwritten PP!s and A-band sheets, with updates and what was missing. It has been the best idea of the day as it let me to have a deeper comprehension and refinement when IDing thinkgs like PP2, PP3, PP1b... The more I log and do everything that is linked to it the more I find answers by myself from the market. PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 17th Session coming soon
Road to expert drill : 17th MADA session on 09/13/19 - 25 EE's IDd MADA on 09/13/19 PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 Debrief coming soon PS : I will not be working more today, have to do some things. See you tomorrow
Except a non annotated BMrev (as appearing in red on the chart) but that was an ommision, I've not found any thing that I could see differently in this session. The only things I know I need to understand deeper and throw the doubts out : - I have a doubt on the Hb that I IDd. I can't make the difference with Fd at the moment. This deals with a lack of understanding of the OOE of Bands beyond C-band and the n+1 test rule. I believe it's this. - I don't know yet if FS takes precedence on Ah on bar 78. My current OP is to say yes. - on bars 47-48-49, volumes goes under necessary 2.5k. I know this is too less to be measured. I just don't know yet if this would trigger a "exit" or a "wait until measurement becomes possible again". "Just for the work", I've measured it. - on bar 67 there's a short BM, then short segment, then on bar 70 a long one, ending at the very same point on bar 75. It does create a TF that is..flat AND its pt 2 is outisde of prior long established TF. As a reminder, being as I stick to JH's no starting any tl inside a Lat, I logically, for now, DD that all this 123bars Lat is to be fanned into prior established long TF. What I currently wonder is whether this flat/short TF is to be considered or due to its flatness, to be fanned. This will be solved I'm sure. 18th Session coming soon
Road to expert drill : 18th Session of MADA on 09/19/19 - 27 EE's IDd PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 Debrief coming soon
Debrief on 18th Session of MADA on 09/16/19 - 28 EE's ID'd Apart from a missed BO,T1 and a non drawn Str on the chart, I've not come to any modification. Seems ok to me from what I understand. The only little doubt I have is on Bar 37. I've IDd an Aa due to the fact that we have P1, T1, P2 and T2P present in the trend and Lat4 is a natural UL. As I know we've discussed this case some weeks ago and I have not the certitude that I understood perfectly, a little doubt resides here. PART 1 PART 4 So far, average number of EE's by log is around 25-26 19th Session coming
Road to expert drill - 19th session of MADA on 09/17/19 - 23 EE's IDd PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 Debrief coming soon
Debrief of 19th Session of MADA on 09/17/19 - 23 EE's IDd PARTS 1&2 A misplaced Lat boundaries at the very beginning when doing the carryover produced some little errors. Once corrected, there has been a bit of cascading effects. Plus, I had missed an Af during a Lat. To finish, I've had a little thought, maybe DD about moving the boundaries of a Lat due to degap. In a certain way, even though it's flat, the Lat boundaries are tl's, aren't they ? I said yes. It's like a flat envelope. Then it has tl's. And suddenly I remembered : tl's are good enough. So, maybe it's not a necessity to move Lat's boundaries in flow with gaps that come along. Therefore, although I won't stop moving my BM's being as JH did it, I'll follow, unless any indication that after passing through my own spectrum of differenciation could be make me understand I should keep with that, this deduction and consider "once a Lat is established, it won't move anymore as for its boundaries". 20th and final Session coming soon
Road to expert drill - 20th Session of MADA on 09/18/19 - 25 EE's IDd It has been a nice little trip to do those 20 sessions. The major differences between when I began with session 1 are now are : - the quickness at which I can ID a scenario - the quickness at which I can clear up a doubt - the time necessary to do a complete MADA session. 3 months ago or so, I needed around 5 hours to complete a log. Without its debrief. Nowadays, a debrief takes me between 20min an one hour and some (depending on the cascdading effects' extent) and a log takes me, including a break at middle of page 3 for 30min, 2hours and some. - the pleasure taken while doing the exercise I may be forgetting some things, but here are most likely the most important ones. They are huge. MADA on 09/18/19 PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 NB : in this session, I've stuck my Lats boundaries once established as previously said. It brought some doubts when IDing some PCs into the Lat. Basically, once in a Lat, the boundaries define the next PC's coming up. If boundaries are fixed, then the refering bar into which all subsequent are squished until either StR, StB, XB, XR or OB surges, is also fixed. It brought this question to my mind : if choosing to fix Lats boundaries and not letting them to be affected by degap, how to ID ? By its real case after degap OR by considering its appearance on the chart so then compared to Lat1 ? I have not cleared this up totally yet, although in my log I've IDd the PC as its relative position to degap. I need to think about it. Indirectly, this little opaque zone sent me somwhere else to another wondering : Up to now, in all the logs I've made since the 1th Session almost three weeks ago, I've IDd, sometimes, Lats into Lats. This could only surge, for me, when at least one bar had BO'd the Lat's boundaries and create XB, XR, OB etc. BUT, after further reflexion when the following scenario came up : At Lat 9 : since Lat 6, we've had a bar not squished into Lat1. Ok. Lat 9 then, is XR. And the two subsequent bars are in its shadow. Each time, in the previous 19 sessions, this happened, I used to draw and ID a new Lat. BUT now, I see it differently : this could happen only if those subsequent bars were not measurable. Are they in the case of Lat 9-Lat10-Lat11 ? They are measurable cause still into a Lat. So I did not consider Lat 9-10 and 11 were forming a new Lat. I think this is correct as it's following the rule of Lat. And then I went deeper into thinking : The rule says to have a Lat, the second and third bars must not be measurable. In the case of a Lat that has gone farer than Lat4 in the shadow of Lat1, we measure prior bars that were not measured. Ok, they are then measurED. MeasurED. But are they measurABLE ? Hmmm.. Maybe I'm making it more complex than it is. That's what I thought and still think. There could be a tricky thing to DD as for a measurED bar can be NOT measurABLE. Ok, I think it's too much and wrong. Thus : for me, its does follow logic, rules and laws not to see a Lat3 on Lat 11. Just wanted to share the thought. From now, I'm probably gonna take 1, 2 or 3 days of break, which is what (2 days) I have granted myself in 19 days of work in a row. I'll let all this rest a bit, 48 or 72hours, and will be back on the road for next steps. Happy and great week end to all !
Back on the road Today will be dedicated to doing a Log, reviewing some litterature, establishing a list of unclear zones built from the 20 days of MADA that have been recently performed, build by hand again the pattern and try to strenghten the mind towards the understanding of fractals/gaussians pairing up, beginning again the EE's Matrix with the updated comprehensions that will lad to new paths and a more complete/correct matrix AND when more refinements and suggestions are added, we'll enter into more differenciation. Best day and week to all.