The turns how you have been doing them will now transform from that baseline reference that you've built into your mind into C-turns as change. Sometimes it'll align with the outer bounds of a channel as the change is visually evident with geometry and volume, other times not so much. You're now doing MADA on trend segments. As such there are complete and incomplete segments combining together to form complete and incomplete trends as you build fractals from the basic granularity on up. It's similar to: to know a thing as complete, then it's possible to know it as incomplete.
Some time ago you were saying : Increasing volume on any volume bar is showing Dominance. That is known as a ‘C’ turn. Labeled C, D-D. This is a Dominant Price and Volume bar pairing. When volume is decreasing and price moves in the opposite direction of the ‘C’ turn then that is a ‘A’ turn- Dominance to non-Dominance labeled as A, D-nD. If price then returns to the direction of the prior ‘C’ turn it is then known as a ‘B’ turn. This is a return to Dominance. Labeled as B, nD-D. From that quotation, can you please point out what is now to be transformed into (the definition you give here to) change ? Cause effectively, in my mind and since long, a C-Turn can only happen on INC Volume. Plus, being as I see you put C in your log on an XR with DEC volume, following some XBs, I don't see now the difference bewteen A turn and C turn.
Much like the 3 numbers of a combination lock, they must be entered in sequence in order to open the lock. If one just looks a particular number (when it's in the wrong sequence relative to the correct sequence) that opens the lock, false positives / positive falses are interpreted as true. In terms of your developing discernment, certain pieces of the puzzle must come before the others in order to complete the puzzle since the puzzle has much to do with sequences. There are certain pictures to develop in the mind's eye that must be in place before other pictures can come into view. You are attempting to decode Jack's latest system. The system that came before is SCT - Seamless Continuous Trading. At first blush, depending on one's background and level of discernment, one will make that mean all kinds of things. You have developed your ability to annotate the price channels of SCT pretty competently. From my interpretation, the volume gaussians have been more of a struggle for you. Up until recently, understanding how the pt2 of a current developing trend is ALWAYS outside of the previous trend and how to use volume to confirm annotating channels of the same fractal dimensional layer had been a block in your understanding so to speak. If you look at the development and evolution of Jack's posts many others have had the same struggle. His response to that was to develop his RDBMS system which is much more precise and exact in defining volume than the nested B2B2R2B and R2R2B2R gaussian sequences ever were from a collective standpoint. The development of RDBMS does not refute nor invalidate whatever came before. Many have and still experience great success just by using the principles in SCT whether in whole or a la carte with other methods. Instead RDBMS extends his approach and methodology of SCT which affirms the power of his logic and discernment and the spectrum of differentiation that he created and continually developed and refined for himself. The logs you are using as a guideline have been extended from my previous logs where I did not identify trends as per RDBMS but identified turns as I understood them from my stage of development at that time. I, similar to you, had problems with annotated gaussians and the phrase 'all gaussians sequences must complete' tripped me up for months for I didn't understand the context when that phase was first spoken and put forth. I used it out of context and misapplied it much like 'truisms' are often applied. Those previous logs did not use the Modrian nor the Move Reversal tables for I didn't completely map out all the EE's, nor did I understand the logic of those tables. I could only make progress by building on what I observed to be true from the market's granularity on up. There were times that I had to go back a couple of steps to return to what was true before attempting to explore a different, what I would call an 'operating point.' An operating point is treating a premise as true and explore from that perspective and logical effects built on that premise. Since then, I've moved on to use the Modrian and Move Reversal tables to identify turns and subsequently the ability to identify trends. In order to do one's due diligence with this, it's important to suspend 'how one has been doing it before' as the only right way. It was a journey to say the least. I had to hold multiple interpretations at the same time in order to work through my own prejudices of what I thought I knew as true, I suspected as true, what I wanted to be true and what was actually true. What makes this a little more confounding is that the market is similar to the layers of an onion - with each layer operating in a contextually opposite manner the the nested one it contains. My logs you are now viewing are an artifact in that transformation in my discernment. If you have a closer look at the Modrian table you'll notice that some EE's can be any one of the Turns depending on where it presents itself in the development of Trend composed of trend segments. For example a BO,T1 as a FS is one of the most frequent EE's to present. It can either be a C-Turn, an A-Turn or a B-Turn. It can be explicitly defined in the table or implicitly defined by negative logic. Jack has promoted the notion that the market operates on negative logic. This, in my interpretation, means 'one can know a thing by knowing what it is not.' Another way to put that is 'by knowing what something is not, one can know a thing.' With all that said, there are some subtle differences in how I implement RDBMS from what would be a purist viewpoint. Most of it has to do with laterals and how price moves within laterals where I have a more aggressive style of annotating & logging since in my style of trading I focus on Dominant Traverses no matter where they present themselves in larger fractal containers. If would be a disservice to mention what they would be in that it's more an advanced subject matter and there are many more foundational blocks of discernment to develop. In a way I have come full circle in that when I first started to post - it was on the subject of laterals and my determination to fully understand them and also how to practically trade them. Way back then, the responses I received were an indication of others level of discernment relative to that specific subject. What was more revealing was where various folks stopped in developing their spectrum. Much to my surprise, one has now become an active troll of the method. So that leads to the question - 'How does one tell the difference between a retrace and a reversal?' In and of itself it's a basic enough question to ask, but the answers it can illicit can be full spectrum depending on context, much of which will fall on deaf ears simply because there has been no context developed yet from the asker. It's an interesting question which the pursuit of is a journey all to itself. In closing, the previous 'operating point' as it relates to turns has formed a base reference in your mind's eye by which will be informative to you as you log turns using the Modrian Table. There will be times that it conflicts, and other times where it syncronizes. Being able to see the difference makes a difference.
@Sprout , I have some questions I'd like to ask. Is there a difference between FTT vs. a trend ending and beginning a new one? I've been thinking about price volume cycles and comparing it to Wyckoff method and I find them to be rather in synch to how a trend progresses and ends. My understanding of FTT's is basically market finds a wall and it fails to travel further and loses momentum then volume. My due diligence tells me sometimes this is shown through a lateral where market extends down and down, freezes, stays in a range (within lateral), then blasts off to the other direction until it FTTs. These are a bit easier to spot but trend reversals are not always so obvious it seems. FTT's seem to happen sometimes on the bar with peaking volume but sometimes on few bars after it. One thing I notice is that if the bar following, peaking volume bar, drops in volume pace drastically (especially inside bars) it isn't necessarily a FTT just yet. Just wanted to ask if you find these observations to be inline with your knowledge. Another question I have is, is the Pt. 2 considered FTT as well? (I guess to answer my own question it would be a ftt since this is the first traverse, in the new trend, ending?) Jack mentions beginners like Pt.1 to Pt.2 find Pt.2 to Pt.3 not so pleasant, and tend to enjoy Pt.3 to FTT better than the retrace move. I find this to be true since if I nailed the FTT just right (doesn't always happen but it does seem possible every now and then), market doesn't move more then 3-4 ticks past my entry (sometimes doesn't even move past 1-2 ticks and just leaves) and I get to enjoy the ride for who knows how many points in this volatility. Then when Pt.2 arrives, it might go into lateral or retrace bigger. I hate this part because if I reverse, sometimes I might be too late or sometimes it just stays around it for awhile and just resumes in dominant direction. If I don't reverse, sometimes it just comes all the way back? or even invalidate the Pt.1 (Maybe there is an overlapping trend I'm not seeing?) On the other hand Pt.3 to FTT's I don't always enjoy, because I do not always spot the Pt.3 in a timely manner. P.S. I see who the active troll is lol
Thanks! Jack even mentions 4 different pace in which you: Sideline (probably VDU) 3tick (as volume drops before going to CCC) 2 points (I think he mentions around 10,000 volume per 5 min bar) Legs (Extraordinary volume) I don't think it applies to the recent volatility as volume levels and volatility are much different but I tend to avoid low volume times due to lack of understanding these areas.
@Sprout, thank you. I am now on Modrian Table. PS : reviewing my docs, I found this one. I guess it's a part of larger mindmap. Do you know where I could find the rest please ?
Regarding IF1/IF2 APA, I still get confused with the concept. Are these all done on 1min charts or is it supposed to be IF1 be alert on 5 min chart, IF2 reverse then focus on 1 min chart for IF1/IF2 APA?
That is a D3 document if I remember correctly. It's an artifact that encapsulated my thinking at the time. I've never completed it in that creating edits on it was cumbersome. It was an attempt at automating and I had visions of it working in realtime programmatically. I soon realized that I needed to understand the application logic more so and that the programming implementation was a distraction to what I wanted to accomplish. I explored a variety of mindmapping software and am using currently using Simpleminds. It is a good piece of software that allows for the collapsing and expansion of nodes which is necessary to have it be functional for RDBMS. I would recommend that you build your own mindmap primarily due to the fact that it simultaneously builds neural connections as you actively work with developing your associations, understanding and discernment. This a faculty and capacity that you need to build for yourself. The method is about deduction and not induction.