Plan for the upcoming days : 1- end with the comments/analyse and refinements from debriefs of @Sprout 's shared charts (should take a day more max) 2- Rest tomorrow and/or Sunday 3- Do 10 logs and annotated charts along next week, incorporating (all the discovered/understood new things/refinements and DD's from Sprout's charts) AND (third pane on charts with 2min YM) etc.. 4- Maybe start logging on real time on following week. For now, lunch time
6:50 : seems like I understand something here. At first sight I was gonna say I disagree with the BMrev being as by placing BMrep at H of prior bar, one does not get BMrev on 6:50. I've noticed that sometimes you place BMrep, sometimes you don't. What I feel is like you maybe place BMrep when they are not violated by next bar. In real time of course it must be backwards. No matter if my DD is correct, you clearly do not use BMrep each time it's possible to. 7:00 : another example of your LOD on acceleration concepet. Mine makes me see NotPP1 followed by BO,T1. 7:25 : let's test from now the hypothesis that you did not omit the BMrev that I see AND your rule set to arbitrate towards rather BO,T1 than [BO,T1 and BMrev] is based upon the rules of true BO,T1 appearance when both FS can appear. In other words, let's say the criteria to arbitrate between both FS's and only one of them, is if BO happens with T1 present and before P2 has appeared then only BO,T1, if not, then both BMrev and BO,T1. 7:45 : what was stated on 6:50 bar as for BMrep tends to be confirm one time here. 8:25 : here why both FS's if not on 7:25 bar... Here I can't verify the hypothesis I wanted. And I won't be able to do so until I start real time AND I can't see if this bar is a natural T1 or P1rep. Anyway, I feel the hypothesis is false and does not lead to anything sensefull. 8:40 : second time I have confirmation for BMrep. 9:20 : using degapped position of prior short BM I would see BO,T1 AND BMrev. Unless this BM would be right on the next bar's close but..in this case following your "I start a trend each time I can", I would also see it. OR You did not ID the BMrev due to the problem (your "more like___ less ___") I have tried to solve with the hypothesis above which I find is not useful for me yet. I will find a way. OR Omission from you of the BMrev. 9:35 : StB on dec vol, I wouldn't have measured this bar, no cascading effect (let's call this CscEff) would result AND third time I have confirmation for BMrep. 10:30 : according to my re-handdrawn version of the PP!sheet I see here an INT-T1-P2 w/ P2 > first P1, so PP1b EE. Cascading effect (CscEff) would be P1ass-[BO,T1+BMrev] 11:25 : this is a detail but I don't see the 3 on volume pan and the number 4 on price pane for this Lat. 11:45 : fourth confirmation for BMrep. 11:50 : Here I could see PP3 killed by the presence of INT after first P1. If you see PP3, then - either I need to add differenciation notes on my PP! sheet and know when INT is Wait or UL, cause here you surely IDd PP3 for that the INT is UL and not wait. This would be congruent with your PP6 last comment. - or it's a mistake 12:25 : I agree with Ac-1 but I also see PP1b. INT-T1-P2>P1 . BuuuUUUUT !! I'd here see more like Ac-1 and less like PP1b due to the presence of three P1's, I mean, the presence of a NotPP1. Back to what I had discussed in a post : the more or less proximity with fulfillment of requirements. Here I clearly see it. 12:55 : 5th confirmation for BMrep.
6:45 : PP2 ? We need two T1's for that. I can only see one. I don't get why PP2 here. I'd bet on an unvolunteer Ctrl+v here lol 7:05 : I'd see a BMrev too. More like and less like.... ? Well let's discuss this a bit again : at the very first second of the bar it's already out of rtl. The bar in hindsight tells me the close NEVER went inside of the rtl again AND at the very first seconc, very very most likely corresponding volume was below prior level so it was T1. BO on T1. I wonder if the fact that close of price bar did never go insid the rtl expains that the FS you choosed has been only BO,T1. But the fact is that I don't see how BMrev can be avoided anyway..weird 7:25 : either more BMrev than BO,T1 because... Idk..close was not out of rtl yet when volume exceeded last measured bar ? I wonder. OR Omission. 7:35 : both FS's so neither more BMrev nor more BO,T1 than the other one. I can see volume this time is below first P1 so T1 forever along the volume bar unfolded. Maybe that's a clue. Wow, I like all this research ! 7:40 : StB on Dec Vol, I don't get why it should be measured. 8:30 : effectively, not more a BMrev than a PP3, nor the reversed option. How did you deal then as for MT ? : prior turn/EE combo was BO,T1/c(D-D)-turn ending set C. Which turn did you choose ? a-turn. Oh !! very super ultra mega interesting !! Cause accordingly to MT, in Set A from BO,T1 as n-1 EE, the linking with BMrev does not exist so it would be a-turn, whereas it does exist with PP3 and it would be then c-turn. You put a-turn, which means : - you used PP3 as n EE - the if this is correct, my hypothesis previously exposed consisting in choosing c-turn if possible would be false AND a problem remains...PP3 assigns P1 on next measurable bar. In this sequence, next bar is wait, next one is measurable, so it should receive P1...and you put T1. All happens in this sequence like if you used PP3 as n EE BUT you used BMrev as P1 assign then, on current EE bar. Either a mistake from you or a very high LOD. Of course, I bet on second choice 8:50 : I begin to wonder if putting the numbers for Lats was in fact just a training wheels and scafford as you like saying. They start do appear less and less on your charts. 8:55 : I wonder if the T1 just above retro label on volume pane is for this bar, 8:55 or not. Looks like no, whereas the retro would make it a T1. AND once again I do not see BO,T1 being as no rtl can be drawn. 9:50 : ok for BO,T1, applicable on ANY bar, but PP3 ?.. Hhhmm. The bar is not measurable by nature, even though I understand now by reviewing the definition of a failsafe why BO,T1 is there, I can't see the PP3 though. AND this case does not help as for which of those two EE's you used as n EE in MT being as from BO,T1 in Set C, both of them lead to c-turn. 9:55 : in any case, here is a confirmation that on two EE's for a bar, if a FS is there you assign P1 on it and not on next bar (in the case the other simultaneous EE is PP!). 10:35 : 6th confirmation for BMrep. I begin to think you place BMrep ASAP and - remove it if first BM is violated - lets it if not 10:40 : numbers for Lat ? Scafford ? 11:05 : here for me your extension of the Lat is good while the subLat's is not. 11:10 : first P1 is in a Lat. So it's an INT. PP3 is gated. Second P1 is also in the Lat. If your PP3 is correct, it would confirm my recent DD according to your post as for the "kill" about PP6 which could be extendible to PP3/PP2, that the INT must be a Wait for PP3 to be killed. It's a bit tricky here cause the PP3 bar is not in a Lat, so killed if INT wait (let's say that now), but it's gated if inside a Lat. Anyway, I get it clearly here. 11:15 : 7th confirmation as for BMrep AND first confirmation for, more precisely, the removing action of BMrep if first one is violated. It's what happens here. 11:45 : 8th confirmation as for BMrep placement and removing. 12:55 : the bar 78's treatment looks so easy here. I wonder what PP4a is. 13:00 : 9th confirmation as for BMrep placement and removing.
7:05 : sooo interesting. We know T2P happens after P2 when in between T1 and P2 AND we also know P1 can happen after P2 if it exceeds prior P1. In this case, the bar is in between T1 and P2 AND it exceeds prior P1. I would see P1revchron. To see T2P, I would have needed the bar to be not only between T1 and P2 but also below prior (in this case, first) P1. Maybe here we can enter into the "more like__ and less like __". I don't know. In any case, this scenario is very highly interesting and important to clear up. NB : the problem does not happen with P2<P1, obviously. Anyway, there would not be any cascading effect (CscEff), next is BO,T1. 7:35 : 10th confirmation as for BMrep placement and removing. 7:55 : BMrev also for me. Ok, let this rest a bit for now and DD later your arbitration more lile___ less like __. OR omission. 9:00 : INT Sym box omission 9:25 : 11th confirmation as for BMrep 9:50 : I expected you to see BO,T1. Seems like close is on the rtl AND a PP3 being as we're in a Lat so it's gated. Apart from the fact that next would be P1, no CscEff would be yielded. 9:55 : oh, Lat numbers are back 10:30 : I agree with BO,T1. But Fd HVBO. Hmm... F context is not here yet unless this deals with real-time which provides more details and makes F-context appear when volume reaches the T2F zone, and then T2F might be considered here ? I don't know yet. No big deal at all. Apart from that, yes the P2 < P1 requirement for Fb is there, and the bar is HVBO > P2. At my LOD, I would see : - no A-band EE possible - Bc not possible so no B-band EE possible either - P1 revchron ? NO, P1 is killed after T2P. - so only P2revchron would be possible here for me. Interesting case. NB-1: what a pity both Fb and BO,T1 yield c-turn in Set A from BO,T1. No clarity can be brought here as for which EE is choosen for turn choice. NB-2 : it appears confirmed that when you see FS and an "on next bar assigning P1" EE, the P1 on the current bar takes precedence. 11:10 : strange to see fanning here. What does change ? Maybe the presence of the subLat within the Lat. 11:30 : as I said, no comment for the BO,T1 non IDd. 11:35 : for me the Lat beginning by Lat1 at 9:45 ends here. Second close out of the boundary. And so does the one springing to life at 11:10, but you did it for this subLat. Maybe there's a differenciation to apply now and the rule could be for example : for a Lat to cease to be, one needs two closes out of the boundaries....on the same side of the Lat. Just wondering. 11:45 : just above conclusion seems to be invalidated after a look at the extension of the Lat. Curious. 11:55 : no comment on absence of BMrev. 12:05 : Lat numbers back again 12:30 : 12th confirmation as for BMrep. It begins to be a lot. 12:55 : I wonder why P3P. Ag VEBO, well, of course yes. And then advanc next peak. So why not P2 ? This must deal with a clearer comprehension of bar 78 I need to have.
Commenting, debriefing and discussing those 8 sessions has been just a great experience in itself. I just loved it. The fact that I've had to, many times, consider several gates/options/possibilities : - was a torture for me in the past - is wealth for me today - strenghtens the mind in an incomparable maneer. I am very happy about this work. But right now ... fun time
I already perceive it. In addition, before knowing to each other and working with you, I spent hundreds of hours in front of real time charts unfolding. I spent one year and half watching charts 5 days a week, one week out of 10, whole session along (6h30). Of course, at this time, I had 10% of the knowledge and skills I have today. I can feel it will, finally, be helpful for me. Working on applying those additional things to my chart and doing a Log.
On 10/02 6:50 : again it deals with your LOD that sees rtl where I don't. I'd only see BMrev. Depends on how you see an internal non-measurable bar. Even though through the methodology some bars are measurable and others are not, price is still changing. Also since the FS has been activated on decreasing volume, it satisfies volume being a T1. It's six of one, half dozen on another type of thing. What's important is that you are consistent in application. It's what builds the muscle memory. So you can not see a BO,T1 and cascade your ID's from there. Does it extract more capital from the long diagional? No it doesn't change a thing. Except when ID turns with MT and dealing with multi FS as n-1 EE. 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. On debrief: 7:20 - PP2 would be a BO,T1, 7:35 - PP3 would be a BO,T1 Absolutely 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 ! If one didn't ID the PP3 and let the progression of trend continue, it would have been an even greater extraction of capital. Yes, and that's I would have done as for me, by applying the "a Lat must have two closes out of its boundaries to not exist anymore", then Lat5 is still in the Lat and the Lat still exists so there's an INT between the two P1's so PP3 would b killed for me due to my comprehension of the "INT kills" columns of PP!sheet. I don't get yet why you see "wait" kills for PP6 for example, whereas I only have "INT" on the head of the column of the sheet. INT can be wait or UL. All waits are INT, but INT means both UL or wait. Something needs clarification here for me. The above would be false for me if the bar after Lat5 had its close back inside the Lat boundaries, so we'd be in a Lat and then PP3 comes back to be gated. 10/01 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. T2F is present in trend. According to my comprehension of the Volume element range sheet (VERS), T2F is gated first after T2P and is killed if < T1. Here the bar after T2P never reches T1 level so for me, there is no T2F. I really wonder what you see here. Even in real time volume did never pass through the state of T2F, as the requirement for that is to overpass T1 level while still remaining below T2P. I don't understand what you state here. Still Ab at my LOD. 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. Three P1's, acceleration is present, therefore PP1. Whithout additional comments I'm not able to understand this. If : - you are talking about price pane, but you've said you don't as acceleration for PP1 deals with volume, then there is no acceleration as the slope between secon P1 and third is less than the one between first and second P1. - you are talking about volume gape between first two P1's and last two P1's, and once again, volume gap is greater between first two P1's than between last two. - or you're talking from real-time which provides something I cant' see for the now - or something else that, again, I can't search nor think about yet because I have not elements enough to discuss and work into this. 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. Af and Ag are interesting money making cases. Collect more of a dataset and catalog. Discern the difference that makes a difference. It will be done 10/03 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. At some point, it just becomes a judgement call and you work it out from there. I can't wait to get what you see here. 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.. Yeah, more refinement around it. Building the catalog AND for now the only explanation I DD is that at the first second of 7:35 bar, in real-time we're in a Lat and then you go backwards and see what I'd have seen as P1revchron as Af cause this bar is in a "currently Lat" so Af is gated. BUT accroding to my A-band sheet, for Af the AddReq is to have P2>P1 which is not the case here. So, your conclusion is not understandable for me now. Collecting and doing catalog meanwhile. 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. This is how laterals are grouped; by definition in a descriptive, functional, or another dimension way. A lateral continues until it ends. It ends on a BO bar. I currently do not see any difference that could make me see this Lat9 anything else than the first bar since Lat1, out of the Lat and killing it definitively. In the following for example, then why didn't you put Lat5 on the last bar ? Ig there's a differnce with the discussed example (Lat9), I can't see it for now. 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. This is one of the areas that had me, in general, not fan the 5m rtl's anymore. If one did fan, a BO,T1 would have still ended the trend segment but the DA of MADA would have waited longer to act. I understand perfectly what you say but I ignore what makes this gated. 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. The T1's volume is in between the two prior P1's volume. It is a PP3. If this is true, it means my understanding of the PP3 according to the PP!sheet was reduced. PP3 is then gated mor often than I thought. Great ! 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. I don't know what a BMrep is. I was gonna say : you told me to put BMrep standing for Bookmark Repeat when a BM is penetrated while keeping the close inside of it BUT of course, due to your reaction I won't haha I simply thought that was the name you provoed me in a past post for this scenario. Anyway, if I'm wrong and you never said it, I am talking about this kind of happening that you sometimes put on your chart (like new higher BM short or new lower BM long) and sometimes not. No big deal it's not very important I think. 13:10 : I would have placed a short rtl from n-1 bar. No the bar is lat3. Upon degap the H's of lat1, lat2 and lat3 are all the same. Lat2 is a BO,T1, c turn, trend set B. All this means go short with a stop one's tolerance above the BM. A rtl would be placed if it was more like a T1 on this bar. Interesting. Effectively, upon degap all three H's are the same. I just think that if I follow the "rtl's are good enough" concerning degap AND if I apply your way of starting rtl when the given PC does not, if the required degap is not done, allow it geometrically BUT by degapping yes it gates it, then I thought one can draw rtl when it is allowed geometrically on the price pane even though after degap it is not. I thought the reciproque could be true. Apparently, no. NB : don't understand how a less like T1 bar would have gated any rtl..