From your initial P1, pt1 and BM short, in addition to the fast fractals that you are annotating, annotate the next slower fractal’s trendlines. They would originate at the pt1/BM and connect to T1’s of volume. Geometrically they can be static from the original T1 OR they can fan (if the form and sentiment support that context) with repeat T1’s OR accelerate. If they accelerate recycle the pt3 into a pt1 in price annotation only. This is a new tape/traverse/channel vector and will receive the same treatment. As long as the TL are not broken, the development of trend is progressing. Your interpretation is that you have been ID’ing turns wrong, that is not an empowering perspective. What you have been doing with turns was building a base of reference. It’ll make more sense later. Put the turns on hold for now, successfully ID’ing EE’s and locating them on the Mondrian table is what will generate the proper ID of turns. For those whom don’t go through the process that you went through in terms of turns, the turns as outputted by the Mondrian table will be counter-intuitive and not make much sense. You can fill in 30m, 5m, and Sentiment. 30m is comparing this current bar to the current 30m bar developing. 5m is comparing this current bar to the previous bar as a Price Case. Sentiment is this current bar. The results of your comparisons are Long or Short.
Hi @Sprout, Noted. Will see if I can follow the instruction correctly. I'm reading the market system of operation by Jack. It seems clearer now. I'm trying to read it first and see if I can expand my knowledge. Now on page 6. Unfortunately some of pics Jack provided, and I guess important ones, are missing. If I knew it and had interested in it back in 2013, I could just copy the whole to my local drive. @WchPl, if not done, you can re-read market system of operation https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/market-system-of-operation.280654. Maybe it can give you more aha moments. Be strong and take care. I also want to keep pressing and pushing so that can attain the knowledge and truth faster. Have a good day
Waw, that's my record lol With that said, the most important (from my knowledge level) thing present in your sentence, which is inside the parenthesis - > and price movement. I KNOW to perform VTP, we're to merge volume AND price moves. And this is the core of the problem. When I read the Volume test procedure in itself, I don't get when it's about price and volume both. I only see it's about Volume. So the fact is that there could have been any price case inside the 5 first bars, I would have seen the P1-T1-T1-P2-T2P sequence. Cause I only watch volume to do the Volume test procedure. And I know that's an error. So, I'm trying to gather everything that is determinating to be able to perform the VTP, but as it mixes and calls for many different things and that it's all working together, I've been finding myself unable to fix a starting point from where I could begin to build. Cause each time I begin with something, sooner or later it fails to be thouroughly built as something else ununderstood is necessary. I don't know what more I can do to be able to finally gather the right things, I've started hundreds of times some logs and VTP, which always end the same way. Some things are missing. I know in my notes, copies and my mind, I have all the elements, located somewhere. Putting the pieces at the place they belong is much more a challenge than assimilating each pieces. As always, the totality is superior to the sum of the parts. Although all this is the primary cause of the hardest feelings I've had along the path, I'm still and will be still in. What a clear, thourough, generous and helpful way of speaking. THANK YOU, I'm studying what you said here currently. Thanks a lot @tiddlywinks .
Fear of error is fear of truth. Let's traverse the fear and go towards truth. Since long in my mind : a price bar describes a price path; two price bars can be encapsulated with the most little parallelogram existing : a tape; two tapes can either create : an extended tape if they are samely oriented as for rtl / a fast fractal if they are oppositely oriented as for rtl two fast fractals can either create : an extended FF if they are samely oriented as for rtl / a trading fractal if they are oppositely oriented as for rtl two trading fractals can either create : an extended TF if they are samely oriented as for rtl / a slow fractal if they are oppositely oriented as for rtl And when one has a slow fractal composed of at leats 2 opposite trading fractals each made up of at leats two opposite fast fractals each made up of at leats two opposite tapes each made up at least with two price bars, then "one has all the necessary" -> the context (FF) of the context (TF) on the context (SF). You say i'm annotating fast fractals, and I feel you're talking about my tapes; can you help me for clarification here please ? With my experience, and for example ( a very little one ^^) with Turns, i'm now totally open to revisit any concept or to reconsider things. I don't want to let my mind drive me to the truth, I want to let truth lead my mind. Hmm.. Don't miss me, I really understand you and I know what i've done with turns is a good thing I remember you had already told me that "later, you will change your vision of turns from the base you're building now". I consider what I've done in a very positive way. I apologize if the hard feelings that cross me each time I do a log affected yesterday my tone and expression. Anyway, if you say that, it means although i'm saying what i'm now, it's that it went this way from your point of view. Thank you for this kind of explication @Sprout , it counts a lot for me and help me to keep straight inside me and on the road Working on this today and @tiddlywinks last post. Thanks a lot, you're much more reactive than you planned !!! @sd2005 we can consider ourselves VERY lucky for all those high quality-quantity contributions ! At the moment I read this part I don't get it. No worry it will come soon, and will fill those cells as soon as it comes I read this Journal 3 times 5 years ago. I reread it 1 time 3 years ago. Read it again 1 time last year, and on last November or December (not sure of the month) I was rereading it again. If you give me this advice, it may surely mean I've gone through the text, and did not let the text go through myself. This is from where come bad understandings, and missed elements. So ? Thank you for your advice, I'll read it again this week end at latest. A global huge Thank you to all of you, great day and iterative refinement, highly profitable orders and see you later in the day
Yes you have it. I could refer to them as tapes, you could call them fast fast fractals. Both meet at understanding different terms describing same thing as both true. OR One could get stuck at thinking only one is true if one focuses on the words. When one focuses on the principle then one can see that principle operating any/every where.
I will replace you OR by an "AND", and we're on the same wavelength. Thank you very much for that clarification
From what is red circled so "T2P appear after P2 and is between P2 and T1 in value", how do you come to "A "repeat" T2P is greater or equal to the first T2P." ? I'm probably missing somehting, but if T2P is between the values of P2 and T1, why wouldn't it be possible to see a volume bar being still between those 2 values AND being under prior T2P ? If T1 was at 10k, then P2 was at 20k, and then T2P was at 15k, why if the next bar is at 12k (so still between 10k and 20k) it is not a T2P ? Differently said, what's in the VTP procedure that I missinterpret or partly see, that makes any volume value under T2P, a not repeat of T2P ? This explains how I use logic. Maybe you can with this point out where I fail to follow logic ?
That is great It reminds me " what's the principle that indicates and dictates if one is to go to the right or to the left on the volume OOE ?". And instantly this comes to my mind again : And to finish this is very helpful : Thank you very much. Going forwards in the log thanks to yours and @Sprout 's explanations
Because it would then be a T2F. Repeat T2P’s are >= prior T2P’s while < P2. There’s a point when a ‘not T2P’ became a T2F because is was time to give an emerging concept it’s own name. A ‘not (not T2P)’ is yet another emerging concept that got it’s own name. This is what Jack is referring to when he mentions Carnap and Bayes.