Real time will feel like slow motion. As you can see from the zigzag drill, the slalom of turns to carve through the succession of turns cycling through trends is clear to see. Most times the pivot is on the BM and at times a bar forward or behind. From here you can create a tri-pane chartview and chart the 30m as well. The 2m YM is the other panel. By having them in tri-pane you are just a click away from drilling up or down from coarse to finer detail. It's a good time to open a brokerage account. You won't be trading right away but there is another platform to learn as well as subscribe to real time data. You get one free feed and then $25/mth data non-pro through Tradingview as Charting and Tradovate as brokerage. The desktop to set up as so: left monitor - Tradingview tri-pane chart, two browser tabs - 1m,1w,1d - 30m,5m,2m. Only one of the six charts is maximized taking full screen - generally the 5m ES. right monitor - Tradovate Trading Platform, tri-pane; left pane-OTR 5m ES, OTR 2m YM charts atop of each other. center pane - DOM ladder. right pane-T&S screens 1 1 fitered on 100 the other is all. This is where the observation of the DOM ladder, the OTR charts and the T&S screen are all finer and detailed views of the HRE. Or any other brokerage of your choosing, they should all have the same basic functional equivalent.
In times like these having a hard skin is helpful. Be encouraged, you know what you know. You know how to deduce the truth of something and create proofs. You've been building a muscle. It requires quite a bit of stamina to stay focused bar-by-bar on MADA during a full day of trading the market during RTH. You'll know when it's the new logical step for it will easily flow. Naps are good.
From my LOD : 06 :30 : great, I get now what PP3a is. It was one one of the very last EE’s I still not managed. 07 :25 : I see the rtl is not fanned. I wonder why. This leads to ID BO,T1 on next bar. By fanning like I’m used to being as I don’t see any reason not to do so, I’d only see PP2. NB : I’m still not sure about why to log both FS and any other EE being as FS takes precedence AND when two FS’s are present on a same bar, I’m still unsure the logical path to follow is the same as when OB surges with FS then PP !. As I previously mentionned, my current LOD dictates that, when a given bar (but not an OB) is naturally both FS’s, I use concerning the MT/MR the first of the two in the order of event (a BO,T1 always happen before BMrev) as n EE, try to link it with n-1 EE in the MT ; at this moment, I ignore the second (which is always BMrev therefore) FS. And then when comes the next bar having an EE I consider the n-1 being BMrev, and try to lin kit by MT to the new current EE happening. In the present sequence, when BO,T1/PP2 surges (7 :30), the n-1 EE is PP3. Now the question is : which of the BO,T1 and PP2 surges first in the OOE ? I feel this can only be answered in real time. (from here I admit the non fanning of the rtl is correct although I don’t get why, and build from this. Anyway, even though this non fanning was an ommission, the case frequently happens with no consideration of fanning rtl). Effectively, being as prior bar (second T1) has a leg 3, ASA next bar went above H of prior one, we could measure it (we’d have XB at this moment). The thing is that by not fanning prior rtl, we can see by the form of the bar that the close of 7 :30 bar never went inside of it. BO,T1 from the first to the 300th second of the bar unfolding. Let’s say we’d have fanned the rtl. By looking close enough we can see the current bar would be a BO,T1 only when at its low. It’s the only point outisde of prior rtl if it was fanned. So far, cool and easy. Now, what do we need to see a PP2, as IDd here ? P2 between two T1’s and no INT between the T1’s. It’s the case here. BUT, of course, most likely the volume corresponding bar did not reach its in-between T1’s level in a second. It must certainly have taken some time. The question of the OOE as for BO,T1 -> PP2 or PP2 -> BO,T1 would be then solved by knowing if the close (let’s ignore the non fanning action of the rtl once again) of the bar went out of the prior rtl BEFORE volume was at a P2 level. OH ! bingo, this reminds me something : description of true BO,T1 reminded by Tiddly some weeks ago : BO of the rtl before P2 has appeared. In hindsight, we can only consider the « P2 has appeared » at EOB. In real time, the dynamic aspect of the thing makes this more accurate and fine to catch. The comfortable thing is that although price can yo-yo with the close making it dance between in/out of rtl, once volume reaches P2 it will never be a T1 anymore, the upper limit is exceeded, end of the questions. So, specifically in this scenario, with this rtl not fanned, BO,T1 must have happened before P2 appeared. Most likely. Or, the only theorical possibility is that at the open of the bar, volume jumps in a sec at P2 level and the two EE’s was already there at the same time. I hindsight this is a bet, but I’d say I’m sure in real time what happened here was P2 took more time to appear than BO,T1. Not risky bet Thus, I understand here : in the OOE, BO,T1 happened before P2. This is easy to DD being as with the non fanning of rtl, BO,T1 is obvious all along the bar unfolded. If fanning the rtl, things would be way more difficult. Real time only could answer. Now the OOE of the two EEs is clear, let’s study how turns have been IDd. It could give a clue for how to manage the « two EE’s on the same bar » scenario. n-1 EE was PP3. It was b-turn, Set D trend just completed. I can see the [BO,T1/PP2] combo has received an a-turn. From PP3 in MT, no linking exist towards BO,T1 nor PP2 in Set D. The answer will not be provided here yet. It’s also a non MR, this won’t help either as neither BO,T1 nor PP2 are MR i Set D. if a-turn. Next bar is INT Wait. Then next bar is EE and BMrev. Of course, it’s b-turn and a MR according to what has been IDd. It won’t help either. Wait and see. 7 :50 : after degap, BO,T1 yes. Tricky and I love that. 8 :05 : You’re used to ID BMrev when close is right on BM. I would have DDd you’d see the same when close is right on rtl. This bar seems to have its close in this case. You could have seen a BO,T1. No big deal, maybe it’s the non accurate enough view I have of your screenshot. 8 :10 : quite strange, BO,T1 but close seems to be right on rtl too. 8 :30 : you did not put the BMrep like you did on first Lat4 of the chart, anyway new bar triggers BMrev. 8 :50 : I dont’ see the reason why this Lat3 is there. Only Lat4 for me, it’s in the shadow of Lat1, all PCs are INT. Either mistake or I’m missing something due to LOD. 9 :35 : short rtl does not appear, I would have put one. 9 :55 : no rtl can be drawn from 9 :45 so I don’t see why BO,T1 can appear on this bar. I only see BMrev. 12 :45 : BO,T1 even if you had fanned the long rtl but…why didn’t you fan again ? 13 :00 : still not possible for me to get the 78 treatment and the subsequent bar’s, so I don’t really know why Ah is there. EDIT : no, I get why Ah is there, finally.
6 :55 : bingo ! a-turn is IDd, we’re in Set C. n EE is BO,T1. N-1 EE was [BO,T1+BMrev] and the associated turn was a b one, in Set B. If considered n-1 EE was BO,T1, then in Set C with BO,T1 as new EE we’d have a-turn. That’s what is IDd here. If n-1 EE was BMrev, then we’d have c-turn as the linking does exist. This tends to make DD the n-1EE taken as a reference for linking action with n EE is the first that surged. This would lead to, when both FS are there on a same bar, BO,T1 will always be the one used. BUT If I go deeper into the exposition of everything, I must notice here that I’m using the consideration of choosing one of the two FS’s as n-1 EE as true. What if this consideration was false ? Then another one would be true. Which other consideration exist beyond choosing ? Use both. What would this mean ? There is to anticipate the possibility of consider both FS’s as n-1 EE and then when n EE comes up, see if any of the links from EACH FS leads to c-turn. Can’t wait to see another both FSs case to see how you dealt with that. Anyway, the present case that is discussed here leads from invalidate the option of only taking into a count the second FS surging in the OOE (always BM). 7 :05 : Lat3, volume is below Lat1’s. Then Lat4 does not trigger retro, I don’t see why the T1 could be there, it is not measured. 7 :20 I agree with PP3, but I also see a BO,T1 that does not appear. Therefore, due to the absence of BO,T1 IDd, a-turn is IDd. I would see C-turn. AND even though there may be a reason why the BO,T1 is not there but only PP3, then this a-turn would be a MR (purple), whereas there is no blob above the a-turn on the chart. The resulting cascading effect would be for me : Lat7 T1, Lat 8 P2 and yes Lat9 BO,T1. AND this Lat9 would receive - if both EE’s considered and two starts are used in the MT : a) from BO,T1 : c-turn MR b) from PP3 : haha. I still have a doubt here. On my MT handdrawn I have BMrev ; BO,T1. Never knew what « ; » mean. Or ? And ?... If « or », then from PP3, c-turn MR. If « And » which in my mind would mean « you need the two FS’s », then a-turn MR. Intermediary conclusion : we can’t have two different turns on the same bar, except if OB trigerring FS and PP !. It’s not the case here. Here we have either « c –turn fror two reasons, for the two n-1 EE’s having a linking towards BO,T1 which gives c-turn », or we have « c-turn for one EE, a-turn for the other one ». This just can’t be. So at this moment, I DD : either it’s not possible to consider something (the two n-A EEs so to speak) which can lead to conflictuous conclusions OR it’s possible and the conflict can be peaced. At my current LOD, I’d ay the only way of solving this conflict would be « if a c-turn is possible, just assign it ». But this is inventing. So, for now, banned conclusion. - if only first (as firstly DDd from 6 :55 bar analyse) FS in the OOE is considered, then a) either the BO,T1 I see as n-1 EE is in fact here and then : -either PP3 surged first, then followed by BO,T1. BUT, in THIS precise case we can see it did not happen. Again, unless there was a nice instantaneous shot of volume at the very first second, the BO,T1 was the first EE to surge being as (arf..too easy here again, what a pity) no tick of the bar has been inside prior rtl. The question remains here if some of the bar had led its close to be partly in the rtl. In this case : if BO,T1 surged first, then c-turn Set A MR ; if PP3 surged first, then if « or », it would be a c-turn too, MR, and then if « And » so a-turn MR. - either BO,T1 surged first and then c-turn Set A MR. b) or the BO,T1 I see is not there and then, ok for a-turn, but on the chart, the blob for MR is missing. 8 :25 : I’ve had a little doubt quickly cleared up as Ag is killed in a Lat. As you extended your first lat until Lat 18 included, I got where my doubt came from. The Lat does not have the Lat18 included. It’s the second close out of the boundaries, and from my current LOD, it’s not in the Lat anymore and then Ag is gated. 8 :40 : I notice you do not place your Lat’s boundaries at their degapped position. 9 :10 : hard to be sure but I wonder if after degap this IDd Lat7 could be a Lat3 also. 10 :50 : again, even though with fanning the long rtl, the BO,T1 would be there, but I don’t know why the rtl is not fanned. 11 :35 : In a Lat, Ag is killed AND we have here P2 < P1. Both reasons that would lead me to ID P1 revchron. Next would be BO,T1. 12 : 00 : after zooming on the chart, I can see the P1’s do not accelerate. I’d see Not PP1. And next would be BO,T1. 12 :55 : what a pity bar 78 did not lead to something more complicated to study.
On 10/27 When I adopted the view of Jack posting student works which also included notes, it allowed me to consider how someone might be writing things down to their own comprehension. This includes being incomplete, having errors, etc. Got you. Technically one could fan. By doing so the cascading of ID's then would be oriented to the new OP. On the 30m it happens more frequently. For me, I'm looking to accelerate the progression of trends to faster timeframes. Since RDBMS tracks trend segments, to fan would then include two, three segments. As a matter of preference, I like to see each segment, independent of the construction of tapes/traverses/channels. I can feel this is part of the next step for me. But not yet available at my LOD. I also see I have to understand what you concretely mean when you talk about the 30min chart. In my progression, ID'ing as many ID's on a single bar allowed me to consider which one is more appropriate. As the concept of using one or two ID's was being examined, having a record of the multiple ID's was more supportive. I currently do it out of habit and at times omit a secondary ID. The secondary ID's even though they followed the OOE of volume sequences, going with a FS allows for a faster recognition of sentiment changes. This seems clear to me. A lateral formed at 8:45, a sub-lateral formed at 8:50 This is new to me AND I DD then a subLat surges, for example with : - SYM-SYM-SYM-SYM - SYM-Hitch-FTP-SYM etc.. so to speak, when 4th bar is in the shadow of Lat2. Up to now, to see Lat into Lat, so subLat, I waited to see an XB or XR or OB being part of the Lat. I had been wondering if what I understand now was correct, I had already thought about it, but I guess it was just a higher LOD that was required to get it. Great. I have it as the same H as when paired with 9:30. Although in the lateral it is lat13/12. Oh sorry, most likely I did not zoom enough to distinguish this. I work backwards. I first define the bars that can only be BM,rev. The bars that are only BO,T1's. Then the bars that can be both. From there, I have a subset of bars which I use 'is this more like ____ less like ____.' In this series (just looking at eob) since there was a T1 in the trend sequence it finds itself in the basket - this is more like BO,T1 then BM,rev. If there was not a T1, no wait, nor a rtl, then that is a BM,rev. I understand what you mean. This is a higher LOD than mine. I prefer, reasonably and productively speaking, to firmly establish my whole current LOD before going higher. On 10/30 It is greater than lat2. If the lat3 was also a lat2 (of a sub-lateral) then I would not have measured it. This is a style preference along the same lines of further refining the two cases: lat2 < lat1 and lat3 < lat2 lat2 < lat1 or lat3 < lat2 One could consider only one of the cases to have lat3 non-measurable, another pov would consider both cases of lat3 non-measurable. At my current LOD, I don't understand what you say here. Neither the text, nor the inequation, especially the "or" in the second part of it. For me, a Lat can be there if and only if Lat 2 and Lat3 are not measurable. The only case in which we would have in price geometry a Lat that would not be one, is if Lat2's volume exceeds Lat1 (with Lat1 measured) or if not, then Lat3's volume must be higher than Lat1's volume (with Lat1's volume being measured). In the discussed case, Lat2's volume is below Lat1's and so is Lat3's. This is a Lat for me. The only way that could lead to measure Lat3 would be then if its volume exceeded Lat1's AND in this case, there would not be any Lat. Yes, upon debrief BO,T1 is appropriate which would have made it a c turn and cascaded ID's from there. This is a demonstration of how resilient the method is for one can still extract capital even with mis ID's when the general principals are embodied. The only thing this sentence makes me feel and wonder is : am I not already, without being aware of it, competent and skilled way enough to extract every day a necessarily nice amount of capital from the market even though I obviously do not master everything ? I use the H and L of lat1. I can feel this is a matter of preference here again AND I can feel my preference to place the Lat's boundaries at its degapped position can't be a bad thing. As for degap, rtls are good enough. Therefore, placing them (for Lat) at their relative position is just better than good enough. I find fanning on the the 5m doesn't expose all the trend segments explicitly. The only place that I do it are on lat2, lat3 when the close is also within the rtl. Confirmation that I need to establish firmly and wholly my LOD before entering/understanding this kind of differenciation. In debrief, I would most likely ID'd that at Af. My LOD disagrees. According to A-band EE's sheet, Af needs P2 > P1. It's not the case here. Acceleration for me can happen between the 1st and 2nd P1 as well as between 2nd and 3rd P1 of the PP1 EE. I thought this was clar for me and I would never have to rethink about it. How can you see an acceleration between only two volume bars ? At my LOD, acceleration can only happen and be observed between three points. It's the comparison of the evolution's rythm between two evolution. I can't see how you can see acceleration between two volume bars unless.. this is only seeable in real-time. Maybe you see it when at the same given time of the bar countdown for two bars, the second one has already a higher level or the same level at a sooner moment. This can't make sense to me for now.
6:45 : very interesting case. I've never seen it, C-band pass. Simply a C-band pass bar, between T2P and T2F. I believe the EE in question as described in my sheet is Ca. 7:05 : interesting again as it lets me refine the very recent way I had understood the PP3a. Last studied chart from your own, led me to see PP3a as a PP3 with from first P1, a bar in the trend was part of a Lat before T1 was there. That's what I had DDd from the AddReq in the PP! sheet as : "see PP3 Lat (3 pc) before T1". Not very explicit for me. If your PP3a is actually true this means one of the bar prior to T1, must be an INT. Nice refinement if true. 8:45 : in hindsight T2F is not there and one needs it to be to be into the F-context and to find any F-band EE. Unless this deals with real-time but even with this I don't see any possibility it would change a thing, I see BO,T1 yes, but Ab LVBO and not Fd LVBO. F-Band is not there yet. 9:00 : following my comprehension of your LOD, I'd say you could have IDd a BO,T1 here although no rtl is there. No big deal, no matter if my comprehension of your LOD is correct, I'm no that high in LOD yet. 9:10 : again, you surely saw the acceleration between 2 of the three P1's which does not make sense for me at the moment. Would have seen Not PP1 followed by BO,T1. 11:20 : I disagree with this bar being Lat11. Lat 8 is functional BO and Lat 11 is its technical one. For me, at one bar after Lat10 we're not in a Lat anymore. It does not change anything as for volume and price ID though. 11:45 : I disagree with Af. We need P2 > P1, it's not the case AND we need to be in a Lat, it's not the case either. Weird you see that and weird your, once again, not fanning, did not lead you to see BO,T1 on this bar. At my LOD, I'd have fanned and seen P1revchron surely followed by BO,T1. The sequence would then be P1revchron-BO,T1-P1-P1(not PP1)-BO,T1. 13:10 : surely a typo but Ah is LVbo, not HVbo.
6:50 : again it deals with your LOD that sees rtl where I don't. I'd only see BMrev. 7:20 : I begin to be familiar with you only labelling one of the two EE's on single bar due to either omission like you said or by refining with "it is less like ___ and more like ___ ". The criteria in this specific case makes me wonder about it. As I can see, at the very first second, the close of the bar BO prior rtl. Then by following least resistance path it went back in the rtl, and finally get out of it definitively. So - either the BO,T1 I see but that is not IDd is an omission from you. And then, BO,T1 surged first, most likely. And then we'd have the two IDd with BO,T1 taking precedence cause T1 is there, rtl is there AND it happened before volume reached P2 level. - or it's not an ommission but an arbitration that led you to see it's more like PP2 than like BO,T1. PP2 requires two T1's with no INT and a P2 inbetween them. BO,T1 requires BO of rtl, and to be true P2 must not have appeared yet. It does not help here. I don't know yet, in the case you've arbitrated bewteen the two EE's, what made the balance bend in favor of PP2. To be refined and deeper thought. 7:45 : the reason why I agree with BMrev is tricky. 2 bars ago we've had BM long. Personally, I'd have put a BMrep at low of the prior bar (prior to 7:45) for its low is below it AND close is above. BMrep. And, when current (7:45) bar comes, then AFTER DEGAP I'd have put the prior long BM one tick upper and this would lead me to see the BMrev. I suspect you either did not bother yourself with those things and directly saw it whithout need of additional drawings OR what led you to ID this BMrev is different than I. Anyway, I see BMrev too. 9:40 : interesting. Of course, I understand the PP3 and the fact I discuss it is just a share about a little crux I still have with it, among others (like PP2 for example). I've always wondered if, if the INT is (for PP3) on the first P1 (then it's a UL), this kills PP3 ? In this case, it's a bit more complex being as first P1 is in the Lat. So it's an INT, and I could say it's a UL being as its volume level exceeds prior measured bar. I've always wondered if this is considered BETWEEN the two P1's. Logically, between means after the initiating boundary and before ending boundary. So I've always considered (if you see the opposite on any of my past chart it's just an artifact of my mind being in conflict with no awareness about it at the moment I IDd the bar) it does not kill a PP3 if INT (UL or Wait) is on first P1 when IDing a PP3. This tends to be confirmed here as you see PP3 with first P1 being an INT part of a Lat. Great ! 10:25 : with my personal use of degap, I'd have added a BMrev here too. 11:10 : it must certainly deal with what you described with the inequation of Lat's volume in your last comenting post, but I would have put rtl from Lat 1 until Lat 3 and seen BO,T1 on Lat 4 in addition to the present BMrev. 11:50 : here you did it 11:55 : which allows you to ID here BO,T1 12:45 : maybe your LOD could have let you ID a BO,T1. But once again, it's from what I understand of your LOD which is not mine. Last time I comment this, I need first to fight with those of my weight category 12:55 : very interesting. As I see, when a FS on bar 78, this bar jumps also until P2 already. Great.
7:00 : either your LOD and rule set of arbitration led you to rather see BO,T1, or you missed a BMrev. 7:25 : It begeins to be usual to see you ID an Af whereas we're not in a LAT AND while P2 is less than P1. My A-band sheet says Af must be in Lat and P2 must exceed P1. For me here, just P1revchron. Resulting cascading effect would be Wait-Ab LVBO-T1-P2-AbLVBO-P1-PP1 etc.. 8:05 : ignoring the cascading effect exposed above, again I don't get your "for me acceleration can happen between first and second P1 or between secon and third P1". I'd see here NotPP1 and cascading effect would be : PP3 and yes, BMrev. 8:35 : although I agree with that third P1, I suspect real-time to bring the explanation of your use of the concept of acceleration. 9:00 : I see a retro triggered by Lat4 which is not on the chart. I would have measured Lat2, given an Ab LVBO ID to it and cascading effect would be : P1- PP1 on Lat4-P1-T1 and yes BO,T1 but not BMrev. 9:25 : unless I've not understood the extension length of a Lat in geometry terms on price pane, I would not have extended it until including Lat9. I have to clear something up here. At my LOD, Lat9 does not exist as it's technical BO of the Lat and then, not part of the Lat anymore. This is just a matter of convention I believe. 9:40 : non fanning action, ok for BO,T1 although I'm unable to deal with it this way yet. Not fast enough, nor deep enough in the detection of trend segments. 11:05 : I disagree with this PP3. According to my comprehension and my PP! sheet, the upper limit for PP3 is second P1, lower limit is first P1. Here volume exceeds second P1, therefore I'd see T1. Next would be BO,T1. AND And this takes me to when in a recent post you discussed the PP6 case : it is killed by waits. This is something I need to clear. From my DDs : INT are 7 of the 10 PC's. They can either have the status of Wait or UL. On my A-band sheet, it clearly says "Interruption (wait, UL)" in last column. There's no way I can understand this differently than "an interruption is either a Wait or a UL". When on the PP! sheet, it's a bit trickier as only "INT kills" appear. But for me, it is not tricky at all, contrary ! It's the generic terms for me that refers to both Waits and UL. It is just less explicitely described on that sheet than on the the PP! one. So : in this sequence, we have an INT UL at 11:00. StR short. Is a UL an INT ? Yes, by nature. You see PP3 where, again I don't see it due to volume being above second P1 which is defined in the PP! sheet as the upper limit not to exceed of one wants to ID a PP3. AND, I might add that the presence of the UL which is an INT, does kill for a second reason the PP3 existence. There may be more differenciation to apply, or my sheet is not accurate enough, but I've just hand copied the handdrawn PP! sheet from JH, as you lastly invited me to check and use. 12:00 : interesting. Of course, I see a BMrep due to degap, but you do not always do it. Wondering why sometimes yes, others no. 12:25 : your way of placing/extending your INT confuse me sometimes and I mistake them with Lat at first sight. 13:10 : I would have placed a short rtl from n-1 bar.