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. Multi-FS as an n-1 EE is an operating point to explore but it's not the issue. The important aspect is using the market as the final arbitrator of truth. Whatever OP one chooses, does the consistent application of it provide greater clarity? extract more capital? If not, time to explore different OP's. I understand the idea, that's what I'm trying to do from now. 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. An internal's action is a wait, unless it's a UL or activates a FS. Internal is a description of the price case form as a class - UL, FS and 'waits' are descriptions of an action to perform within that class. In how I understand it, your last comment confirms what I say. 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. In how you understand it, if T2F is killed when < T1, then Fd, Hb's would not exist. The measurable volume bar is always one of the 11 volume elements. In addition is can also be an EE. For me, in this particular trend segment, as soon as the bar starts building it can be a T2F and then it can transform into other volume elements. If it stops building and is below T1, then as a T2F < T1 then it qualifies as an EE. Hmm.. Not exactly. I can see a Fd even though my comprehension of T2F killed afer T2P is below T1. I just need a T2F present in the trend to see it. It takes the place of Ab. In addition, it is well said "later after the T2P and T2F have appeared the F context comes into view", and if I apply what I know about the major clue for getting EE's, I can see a Fd but..I need a T2F. With that said, I must repeat something I've said in..I don't remember which, but I did notice this in a log recently, I can't understand for now the difference betwen Fd and Hb. This surely deals with the "n+1 testing" concept thta I know I don't know. Being it has been recently said to me to stop ID only true BO,T1, I could see that the F, H, J, K bands happen very rarely so the case kind of does notpresent itself enough for me to can study it. Maybe I could build a path leading to those EE's and post them so we culd have a discussion. That's what I will do. AND I might add that there's for now no way I can find to see anything more than an Ab for a bar below T1 and following a T2P. The VERS clearly says first(NEXT) T2F is after T2P, GATED after T2P and T2F and KILLED if below T1. For me, as long as T2F is not present, no F-band EE can surge. Here, T2P is there so A-band and B-band are active, and the bar we discuss satisfies the Ab LVBO requirements. 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. It's a judgement call - in taking the dataset, do you observe acceleration or not? According to my comprehension of your and Tiddly's last explanation, NOT. 10/03 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. Af has P2 < P1 leftmost. What are you talking about ? The requirement for Af on the A-band sheet is P2 < P1 leftmost ? If that's it, we do not have the same A-band sheet and it's ...serious. We need to clarify this once for all. I can't increase my LOD and be in the circle of peer if we do not have the same sheets !