I do not understand how can bars 17,18,19 can create a FF, as the high of bar 19 is higher than the high of bar 17... I'm gonna do so more charts to practice.
As bewteen 19:50 and 20:20 the global (here, Sprout, I'd say like on your 2nd or 3rd row on the volume pane) volume color and trend is blue (black for me), and between 20:20 and 20:40, volume keeps its color but inclinates its slope towards up, I see a B2B indicating the blue (black) long segments are passing from a non dominant to a dominant action. It creates points 1 and 2 of the traverse long. Then bewteen 20:40 and 20:55, price reverses itself to go short and we see volume passes from dominant to non dominant support. it creates pt3 as it appears on your chart. Then, from 20:55 to 21:05, price reverses itself one more time and so does the volume. It's back to dominance. The dominant price action is long. Then on the last bar, 21:10, volume begins to decrease, the color has moved to red. Those are signals for me of back to non dominance. So I'd expect red decreasing volume with short PA. if volume begins to increase as price continues to be short, we'd have a R2R inside the power of the previous B2B, creating a point 2 of a short FF, crossing the previous long RTL. This would open the road to nest FFs and search for a Trading one and so on. How's it ?
It's a short tape and a start of a long tape started by virtue of the bar19 OB. Bar19 was a reversal bar from where bar18 was increasing red volume. This could have BO to the short side. But that is what makes it a reversal within this 3bar context; a change in Dominant direction.
After first reading I kind of get it. I have to see on bars now. Sprout, do you encourage me to keep on the road of nesting ? From what I post recently, can you say if I locate correctly the Failsafes ? I feel way better doing the drills related to nested fractals. Plus, and this may be a bit weird, but I see the concept of nested fractals like something beautiful as I go through the work.
It's a question only you can really answer. As for Failsafes, that really gets distinguished by drilling the VTP. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/in-search-of-god.308024/page-206#post-4657111 It's not weird at all. Market action can be interpreted as beautiful symphony quite similar to music. The fact that you see beauty is an indicator that you are on the right path to a higher more inclusive reality. "All the way to heaven is heaven" St. Catherine of Siena
Thanks, I guess I get it. I'll practice. Being as I like what i'm working on, and since this has not been happening for long, I'm like enjoying the nesting of the fractals. Then, I'll make soon a choice but I think I'll keep on this area a bit more. But this will not be a lot, cause apart from the fact that I wan't wait to be able to nest properly, I know and thank you for reminding it to me, I have to work too on what has cuased me the most of problems along the last 3 months : the VTP. So I'll do some more job on nesting fractals and the rows of volume, and I hope I'll get it so I can move towards the resolution of the VTP. I feel what you say Thank you very much for Abraham's quote. And here is an attempt to kind of "nest" the volume sequences. It's hard to understand. I started helped by your example, thank you by the way for that !, but it is hard. How's this one ?
At whatever level of resolution, the volume b2b or r2r's endpoint is pt2 of price. Pt2 of price by definition is outside the previous channels RTL. Depending on the instrument, it might be offset by a bar or two (especially equities), but it's the way to confirm or refute valid channels. For example in "\ /" of volume, "/" ends at pt2 of price (at that level of resolution.) Pt1 to pt2 is ALWAYS the Dominant Traverse. So for each component of channels that are nested within each other, each observation level of volume will be coupled to it's associated price channel. Whether it's tape/traverse/channel it matters not, just as long as you group "like to like". This is one of the areas that causes much confusion around 'fractal jumping'. This concept be become clearer after drilling on 50 charts. Not to drill 50 charts to get to 50 charts drilled. More so by drilling on 1 chart, notice your questions and seek to answer your own questions and iteratively refining on each subsequent chart. You are doing great! and There is a shift to make from primarily inductive Q&A to deductive reasoning. Questions like "How's this?" "Is this Ok?" "Am I doing this right?" etc. are inductive. That type of thinking will keep one stuck for the answer is held outside of oneself. More traction can occur when considering postulates and theorems and logically working through them. Jack's work is composed of many postulates, it's your personal work get to the theorems. In so doing, you have a direct experience of truth. Contrary to popular belief in a pain-oriented culture, one can always profit from the truth. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/geometry/fundamental-ideas/postulates-and-theorems "Postulates and Theorems A postulate is a statement that is assumed true without proof. A theorem is a true statement that can be proven. Listed below are six postulates and the theorems that can be proven from these postulates. Postulate 1: A line contains at least two points. Postulate 2: A plane contains at least three noncollinear points. Postulate 3: Through any two points, there is exactly one line. Postulate 4: Through any three noncollinear points, there is exactly one plane. Postulate 5: If two points lie in a plane, then the line joining them lies in that plane. Postulate 6: If two planes intersect, then their intersection is a line. Theorem 1: If two lines intersect, then they intersect in exactly one point. Theorem 2: If a point lies outside a line, then exactly one plane contains both the line and the point. Theorem 3: If two lines intersect, then exactly one plane contains both lines. Example 1: State the postulate or theorem you would use to justify the statement made about each figure. Figure 1 Illustrations of Postulates 1–6 and Theorems 1–3. (a) Through any three noncollinear points, there is exactly one plane (Postulate 4). (b) Through any two points, there is exactly one line (Postulate 3). (c) If two points lie in a plane, then the line joining them lies in that plane (Postulate 5). (d) If two planes intersect, then their intersection is a line (Postulate 6). (e) A line contains at least two points (Postulate 1). (f) If two lines intersect, then exactly one plane contains both lines (Theorem 3). (g) If a point lies outside a line, then exactly one plane contains both the line and the point (Theorem 2). (h) If two lines intersect, then they intersect in exactly one point (Theorem 1)." Deduction vs Induction https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, people confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, and vice versa. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified. Deductive reasoning Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to California State University. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Deductive reasoning usually follows steps. First, there is a premise, then a second premise, and finally an inference. A common form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — reach a logical conclusion. For example, the premise "Every A is B" could be followed by another premise, "This C is A." Those statements would lead to the conclusion "This C is B." Syllogisms are considered a good way to test deductive reasoning to make sure the argument is valid. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. According to California State University, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true. It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false. Inductive reasoning Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. This is called inductive logic, according to Utah State University. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science, there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty." An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies." Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements. Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations. Abductive reasoning Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations, according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation. For example, a person walks into their living room and finds torn up papers all over the floor. The person's dog has been alone in the room all day. The person concludes that the dog tore up the papers because it is the most likely scenario. Now, the person's sister may have brought by his niece and she may have torn up the papers, or it may have been done by the landlord, but the dog theory is the more likely conclusion. Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them. HTH