Per the doc, P3P/F are EEs for G-band, which occurs ONLY on n+1 testing of C-band. There is no contradiction. In fact, P3P = Ca and P3F is a place holder for a different EE.
Some even finer points... T2F activates C-Band. With C-band activated, F-band is known and usable. F-band is "outside" of C band. Many times P3F on n+1 testing (G-band) is the place holder for an F-band EE. With F-band known, H-band is also known, but H requires G-band first! NB: This subtle timing is a point of difference between "F" and "H" EE's... look at the upper and lower limits of F and H EEs. Whats left is K-band. Go back to C-band... T2P -> T2F If n+1 testing is P3P (which is the same as Ca EE), this is also a "triple" (T2P/F/P), which activates K-band. All bands are in play! A P3F or FS can occur.
Per the doc, P3P/F are EEs for G-band, which occurs ONLY on n+1 testing of C-band. There is no contradiction. In fact, P3P = Ca and P3F is a place holder for a different E. Ok, lets dissect. You say P3P and P3F are EE’s. We also know they are part of the universe of 11 volume elements. The conclusion if what you say is true, and this would then be congruent with what JH says, is that P3F and P3P are both volume elements AND EE. So, they would both reset the OOE. But still remains the fact that JH says when the name P3F is assigned to the bar, this assignment means the trend did not come to and end by having a third peak in the OOE of peaks. At first sight the end of the sentence looked clear to me. Then I revisite dit. Google traduction does not help me on the doubt I have. It is there : does this mean 1- The trend did not end, because of the fact that there is not a third peak 2- The trend did not end because of the absence of a thrid peak, but it did end for another reason the is up to one to DD why I found help for that with when JH says it is correct to say « P3F is assigned if the next bar n+1 has lower volume than the T2F bar and not less than T1 (trend NOT completed) ». Here, if this is correct as JH states, then P3F means the trend is not over. What does this mean in RDBMS terms ? There is NO EE. So, how can P3F mean the trend is NOT over AND P3F is an EE ? Ok, it’s both. But I know when a volume element is there with an EE, the EE takes precedence so to speak, in other word, the trend has come to an end. But JH says when P3F is there, there is more to come. This is were I see a contradiction Tiddlywinks. Moreover, you say P3P/P3F are EEs for G-band which occur ONLY on n+1 testing of the C-band. So this means, if there is neither repetition of prior volume elements nor any wait, on the sixth bar of the trend. The fact you say it happens (G-band) only on the n+1 test of C-band, means it does not happen before nor after. Once only. After that, you say in fact P3P = Ca. Once again, we know Ca is the band-pass EE of C-band and it is when the sixth bar of the trend is between T2F and T2P. This is a third peak yes, the third peak passes, P3P. Clear for me. Then I read from you that P3F is a place holder for a different EE. So P3F is not where P3P is. Of course, that is clear. (while I’m writing I see you’ve posted a new message, let’s study it and try to DD and solve what I see as a contradiction). You say T2F activates C-bands. Yes. With C-band activated, F-band is known and usable, F-band is outside of C-band. Yes this is what I’ve recently DDd and understood. So far, good. Many times, P3F on n+1 testing (G-band) is the place holder for an F-band EE. You talk about P3F. P3F by definition is after T2F when it is less than it and above T1. This is also how I see T2F repeat defined, which can lead to PP6a. That’s also a contradiction I’ve not solved yet. Then you say n+1 testing (G-band). So it is clear now, G-band and F-band happens at the same time, they are just in different zones, space. I know F-band is outside the C-band. Effectively if P2 < P1, after a T2F, if the bar that comes in the C-band it’s P3P=Ca, so G-band yes, if volume is under T1 it’s Fd so F-band, if between P1 and P2 it’s Fc. So this is enough to proove F and G-bands are both at hand on n+1 test of the C-band. So, I’m beginning to understand what n+1 test is, differently than how I had recently understood it. Seems like the three n+1 tests are not on three different bars. F and Gband EE can come on the same bar, the n+1 T2F bar, w/ n=T2F. Good. Back to the statement : Many times P3F on n+1 test (G-band) is the place holder for an F-band EE. Effectively, P2F is after T2F and less than it. For now, for me, it can either be Fc or Fd. I may have a problem with Fc. In how I understand Fc and Fd, every Fd is also a Fc, but Fc is not necessarily an Fd. Depends on if volume remains under T1 but if so, it will neccesarily be under T2F and so be a a Fc too. But, it will be more an Fd. Then, with F-band known, H-band is also known, but H requires G-band first. The « is also known » sounds for me like it deals with the boundaries of the H-band zone. This seems to be confirmed when just after you say : this subtle timing is a point of difference between « F » and « H » EE’s…look at the upper and lower limits of F and H EE’. Ok, what are they ? According to the B-through-K bands sheet I have and in which, it has been said to me by Sprout that it has mistakes that are to be sussed out, : Fa has no upper limit and its lower limit is P1. Logical, clear, because Fa is there when above P1, it’s an HVBO, and we need P2 > P1 for that. If the same bar appears but P2<P1, I don’t know yet if Ha or only P1revchron. Fb has no upper limit and lower limit is P2. Fb is defined as a value just (only) greater than P2 when P1 is above P2. It’s the blue zone of my drawing in post 1502. Fc has no upper limit and its lower one if T2F. It may be that I’m sussing out one of the mistakes of the sheet being as the litterature says Fc is lower than T2F, so my DD is that on the sheet there should be upper limit = T2F and no lower limit. AND, the description on the sheet would not be LVBO <T2P but LVBO < T2F. Fd has no upper limit and lower limit is T1, according once again to the sheet. Here again, I think there’s a mistake. Fd is lower than T2F, so I DD its upper limit should be in the sheet T1 and it should not have lower limit. So, if I stick to logic, the upper limit of F-band must be the upper limit of the highest HVBO of this band. By nature an HVBO of the highest band at hand has no upper limit. Hum…So no, the upper limit of F-band EEs is the highest upper limit available of its EEs. It is P2. And lower limit is T1. What about H-EEs ? They are Ha and Hb. It took me time to manage to read what was written into the AddReq row of the sheet. I think now it’s « Break out of prior through secondary bands ». Ha has upper limit as higher peak and lower limit as T1. Hb has upper limit as P1 or P2, and lower limit as T2P. So higher limit of H-band is P1 or P2, and lower limit is T2P. So, I DD the F-band goes lower in its space definition, than H-band. In my drawing of post 1502, I’ve IDd Hb as below T1 after after the n+1 test. Like I see now the Fd being the Ab of F-band, I see Hb being the Fd of H-band. The litterature says H-band appears after the n+1 test has been made. For me, this can mean two things : after you’ve determined no C/F/G-bands EE is possible on a bar then you test for H-band EE AND it means if the n+1 bar after T2F is not an EE and then, the sequence continues, then at n+2 bar finally, H-band is there. The susbtility is maybe what I just said. Finally, what is left is K-band. I understand when you say if P3P is there after T2F, this is also a triple and it activates K-band. Yes all bands are in play. And THIS is precisely what causes me troubles ! Let’s try to DD. To be continued
Ok, I needed to review a bit the litterature. I see my english level still needs to improve to avoid confusions. The litterature states " the band pas on the former triple (T2P/F/P) is Ka. A band pass on the latter (T2F/P/F) is Kb". Upto now I had understood Ka as the formation of T2P/T2FT2P, and when the last T2P was there, then so was Ka. Same logic for Kb. I understand now I had misunderstood the statement. My understanding now, according to how I get the phrase, is that we need a bandpass, so a bar that is tested to know if it is inside the given band. This reminds me the n+1 test. And this would mean both Ka and Kb need n+1 test. I know C-band also needs a n+1 test. Ow, little Aha here : Ka, Kb and Ca are the three n+1 test requiring EE to be. This clears up my doubt in prior long DD message as for where n+1 test is involved. In fact, I see it clear now. The n+1 test is when we test if the bar after (n+1 bar) the n bar forming a band/zone/space, is inside or not. Effectively, this does not happen on F/G/H EE's. So clear, nice DD here : n+1 test happens three times : for Ca (=P3P), for Ka and for Kb. And even greater and more comfortable/confidence, this is congruent with JH and snwbee conversation @tiddlywinks shared. Great ! To be continued..
My actual DD, but it's "more a feeling, less a DD " , is that C/F/G bands are on the same bar, H band is after those, and then come K-band.
The current issue that needs to be sussed out and DDd is that with all I understand at the moment, T2F repeat can not happen and then PP6a would not exist. That's not possible. In how I am understanding these last bands, I can't find T2F repeat alone, without EE automatically coupled with it so to speak. That's my current sticking point.
It can happen... but 1) Who cares? PP6a (and some other incremental EEs) are not part of MT in any position or set. 2) Per JH, the result of DOM games. I'm sure method completeness was a consideration too. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...on-a-daily-basis.275733/page-104#post-3927792
Before studying your point 1) and 2), I must find how to reconciliate my understanding and the possibility of T2F repeat. With that said, at first glimpse : 1) if PP6a really happens and I miss it, then ID a different EE that is on MT, won't it lead me to mis-ID the given turn sometimes ? 2) I've read the link you provided, it's hard for me to understand a complete sentence for now. DOM is not a foreign concept to me, but just a non understood concept that scares me since the beginning, as much as VTP, EEs, PP!s concepts were scaring me last year.
I will not travel down the minutia path. I do not yearn for answers to obscure or rare occurrences that occur within 1) a self-correcting methodology, and 2) that do not cause peril to my safety, health, or financial well-being. We are talking about trading here.... 100% is neither a requirement nor a possibility! That said, without going down some one-off made up volume sequence, an unlikely, but nonetheless a possibility for PP6a would be 3 T2F's each with equal volume, and of course no failsafe trigger. There are other possibilities as well. But who cares? How often have YOU progressed a sequence to T2F and/or beyond? Scarcity in the available literature is also a fact. As for the DOM, you may like to start a new thread in one of the other sections of ET asking for book recommendations on Tape reading, DOM, DOM-Ladders, and things related. The DOM and related is NOT unique to JH or this method. I have seen this "perfection" happen to multiples of people studying JH. Personally I don't understand the NEED for perfect. You have a skeleton key that works 98%. You are free to focus on the 98% or the 2%. I deal with and focus the 2% as/if/when they occur. That is how *I* learn. Be. Do. Have.