Instead of going into too much time taken to answer this (I have a lot to do today, I am sorry), I send you to page 23 of this thread. It has been nicely discussed here. Thank you very much for you kind and supporting words. If you enter into all this, let us know I wish you the best.
Let's call this the doubt lists. 1 was N node not studied deeply enough. 2 - why certain nodes exist 3- the double nature of some nodes 4- the reference trough used for the beginning of a trend 5- IBGS meaning 6- what mean " at the beginning of the bar" 7- which node would cover this scenario ? 8- difference between J and K 9- path along a single bar or from one bar to another 10- midday definition and calculation 11- use of PRV Let's dig all this step by step
Thanks. I won't push the matter further, but let's just say I agree with what a few of the posters on that page said. With the huge volume of posts and claims throughout the years - many of them during market hours - it is a bit odd that there never was any demonstration of actual trades. Normally, I'd say that you don't really owe anyone anything, but if you take on the role of a mentor and teacher and equally make claims, I don't think it's too much to ask for a demonstration. But hey - that's my view. And we don't need to discuss it further. You're very welcome! Same to you. I'll be following this thread. By the way - I assume you must have a full overview of everything taught by Jack by now? Is there a single document or PDF which contains the bulk of his teachings or an overview for a guy like me who at this point is merely curious?
I am gonna classify, rephrase and give examples of the 11 points of this list. Classification Disturbing a bit 1 2 3 8 Rather disturbing 5 Very disturbing 7 10 Highly disturbing 4 6 9 11 Rephrasement Disturbing a bit 1 : the doubt I still have with it is why there is no thing said about fail AND the corresponding volume possible surges. Also, in the 3x5, the P definition disturbs me with understanding this surrounding N node. P is described as a OR feedback gate : we must pass through P coming from Doji failure or after a doji pass with color change. 2 : there a certain nodes which existence seems to me to only be dued to an attempts to have as many nodes as there are letters in the alphabet. But that’s not congruent being as I and O are missing. Nonetheless, there are nodes that I look as redundant to use. It makes me feel I’m missing somehting, thus why the doubt. 3 : this was concerning only E node. But I have to say atm I write this post, E node looks way clearer to me than yesterday. 8 : I can’t differentiate J and K very well. From my recent study on N node, I’ve DDd that one of the difference between them is that K is not used for an exit after fail of doji, whereas J is. Apart from that : J and K can happen at open or during any bar. Respectively they cover the case when volume drops below prior, while K covers the case when volume drops below prior w/ any color. It’s hard not to DD that J is for non-Dom w/ same color. Also and to finish, I must say that I perceive a possible half-solution to that thanks to S node. Rather disturbing 5 : IBGS is Intrabar gaussian shift. Fromm y LOU, it concerns the intrabar path the close makes when after a given direction taken after open, it goes back towards O. This would be congruent with when JH says IBGS is a pre doji on post 127 in ExSc. But I also read that a doji can be before an IBGS in Non-Dom move in post 232. Being as I’m unsure of what an IBGS is concretely and precisely, I’m not that comfortable with N node as it’s the doji IBGS box. Very disturbing 7 : at some moments, there are different possibility that I see that could surge and I don’t see any node covering the case. I assume it must come from one out of two possibilities : either a lack of DD that makes me able to imagine a scenario which is, at the point in question, in fact impossible.OR, it can be from a lack of DD that one can make from some existing nodes that could, in fact, after DD, cover the given situation. 10 – I have not yet searched actively nor found how midday is bounded, determined. It makes paths from C unsure. Highly disturbing 4 : this deals with two things. The first one, I won’t even talk about it cause it sends back to everything. Let’s stick for now to Cycle 1. So, it deals here with D node. I don’t understand when we’re at D, why we’re at it, nor why it exists. 6 : I am unsure this means at 288sec. 9 : this one deals with the next and last one and they both are the biggest ones. The biggest not because they are the two biggest doubts I have, but because it’s what have most consequences on my understanding of the chart. I am uncapable of passing from a n+1 bar status to a n+2 bar status ALONG THE SAME BAR. But I am capable of passing from a n to a n+1 bar status along the same bar. And I am capable of passing from an n+2 to an n to an n+1 bar status along the same bar. In fact, the massive importance of the doubt I have here comes from this still unsolved question : after being sent to A by J/K during a bar, is there a possibility to see, later in the same bar, the bar bar have the status of a n+1 node. It makes the link with point 11. 11 : I may have just solved partly solved this. The problem is : how many times along a bar do we consider and let the level of the PRV impact our bar status AND do we use PRV in n+2 column although it is not written on the FCC1. Examples To be continued...
You don't know how much I understand your view !! That said, I'll just say a thing before closing that discussion as you express such a desire. At a certain level of comprehension which means, at a certain level of awerness, what will be a proof for one won't be for another being at another level of coupled awareness/comprehension. Let's say in about 2 months I begin, cause all the remaining pieces I still have to put together with those I already have are now gathered and nested all together. I begin to extract a very nice part of the full offer of the market. Not the full offer simply because it's the beginning, and of course I need to let my rubbers meet the road and practice in live w/ real money to tend to extract the full offer. Do you believe I'd post any proof, any screenshot of my account ? I will never do that. Simply because I would owe this more than anything/one else to myself. Plus, it could only produce jealousy, it would be a provocation. A huge one. AND Do you think such proofs would make thousands of people take the move ?It would not. The work asks a lot of concentration, absence of greed, endurance, sacrifice, time, devotion, heart... I've seen many people have in front of them universal undeniable proofs that some things were real. They did not move a finger, in spite of the evidence. What if JH had posted its results on its account(s) ? Would this necessary mean it was the result of direct application of its teached methods ? Maybe JH was a multimillionaire from birth, born where and when it was the best, and he could have spent his time inventing insane gibberish on internet, posting pics retouched on Paint of a virtual account with series of positive orders.. I could post this if you want ^^ For me, one of the two proofs I have received from JH that all this is true, is precisely the fact he never posted the proofs many asked... Imagine a second JH talked true. All this works, is true, is doable. It's real. Do you think in this world, anyone could make that gift differently than how JH did ? In other words, filtering away people who cannot think critically, lazy and greedy people ? Making it locked in a labyrinth ? He had heart enough to pass it forward. So I'd keep these proofs more than anything for myself. The only thing I could do next, would be pass it forward and do what @Sprout in number 1, has been doing with me for 2 years now. The only difference would be I'd do it my way. To finish, let me tell you a thing : it is not a matter of the proof one can receive that one would believe what one sees. It's a matter of what can one host. When I entered into JHM, although I understood those asking for the proofs of all the proofs, I never had any other need of proof than this one : future is always contained inside the present; it's not about predicting what's gonna happen, but all the matter is to understand that everything produces the substance of its own birth. So we, as human beings, only can anticipate what comes next, analysing in a given context the story of our present, as it unfolds in front of our eyes. [...] there is not even a millimeter of the present that was not already present inside the past. The foam of present already exists in the source of the past. All that happens now was contained in-before, the most little move of right now was already present in the past. I'd bet money (If I had some ^^) that you think you just read a JH's text. It isn't. This is just what some human beings, 2000 years ago, were already saying and writting. 18 centuries later, some people retook the thread of history, produced anticipations of what world would be 50, 100, 150, 200 years later. This is what I study when I'm not studying JH. They have never been wrong so far. If one told to another "read this book and you'll see that everything that happens nowadays was anticipated inside this book. Oh, and this book is 150 years old. Oh, and if you wanna go further and feed the comprehension, you can read those 10 000 pages more. It's the paths, all the dissection from source to foam". Will one necessarly read and do the work ?...just imagine. So, "when I met JH", when I saw what he was saying, I could just DD that this man was doing nothing but expressing the radical method Hegel and presocratics used, in other words, the real move of history....applied to trading. I applied it to spanish and foosball, uncounsciously, I saw the results. Apply it to anything and see the result. That would be very pretentious from me. Better said, I'm still studying and I have most of the pieces.
I would not ask you to do that as you have not made any claims, nor tried to mentor anyone else. I even communicated briefly with Jack earlier (not in private) on ET, but never asked him any proof. I would not mind if you at least told us if you were profitable or not when you eventually go live though. As for the work, I've paid my own dues, done my own research and built/programmed my own trading models over the last years. I've put down a tremendous effort and sacrifice doing this without any guarantees at all except the belief I will come through in the end, so do not think I'm coming from the perspective of a lazy guy on the couch who wants proof before he's doing anything. To be clear - I didn't ask if you understood everything. But if you had a good overview. Having been at this for 2 years and more by now - I assumed you did. Thank you for your post above. Best regards.
I really did not believe you were part of those. You did not say nor do anything that could make me believe so! I sincerely wish you the best in your endeavors. I know this world is hard. Hold on!!!
Examples 1 was N node not studied deeply enough. … 2 - why certain nodes exist For example, H. Why do we need H for going from R/S w/ Dom fail, to J/K ? Why inserting an intranode inside Rfail/Sfail >>A. 3- the double nature of some node This concerned the E node. It seems now to be not valid anymore. 4- the reference trough used for the beginning of a trend It concerns D node. 5- IBGS meaning … 6- what means " at the beginning of the bar" JH talks about letting mature the bar before use its PRV. And I see on the Cycle 1 chart that 12sec is mentionned. In a countdown way, it would be then at second 288. I think that this problem is now solved being as I haven’t seen anything going against this AND all I’ve seen is going as a confirmation of it. So I DD « at the beginning of the bar » = at second 288. 7- which node would cover this scenario ? This will be extended in another post being as it’s one of the biggest crux I have with the cycle 1 atm. For now, I can give the example of, which node covers the case when - In n+1, volume surges > prior w/ same color - In n+2, volume surges > prior w/color change I’ve just thought about something related to N node right now as I was writing this part. As said at the beginnning of this 7-example point, I’ll make another post for this doubt. 8- difference between J and K I have already expressed it. K is volume surge less than prior w/ color change. J is volume surge less than prior any color. Would J cover, implicitely, surge of volume below prior w/ same color ? I think the post in wich I’ll develop about the doubt 7, will also deal with doubt 8. 9- path along a single bar or from one bar to another Definitely, this point needs an another post, maybe a unique one dedicated to that, exclusively. 10- midday definition and calculation This has already been explicitated. 11- use of PRV Same as above. I remember JH states there are 5 PRV measurements. At second 288, 240, 180, 120 and 60. What I wonder is whether we are to use what states PRV ONLY at these moments in time, or at anytime during the bar. Also, I had until yesterday, a doubt about if we’re to use PRV at R/S nodes or only at F/G nodes. That’s what is shown on the chart of cycle 1. But I’ve read something different that clears everything up in the ExSc thread on post 689 : we use PRV on n+2 too. This will help. Next posts will be dedicated to : - What remains fuzzy - prolonging DDs from last ones To be continued...