Your logic is congruent with your current level of differentiation. As your spectrum of differentiation expands to include more distinctions so too will the number of OOE sequences this series of bars can be. It’s much like an inverse onion. A onion has many layers that encompass and encapsulate each other as one’s absolute position mores from the center toward the outside shell. Each layer could be considered logical truths that are congruent to each other within that shell layer. However, when viewed from a different layer that truth could make sense or not depending if that next layer encompasses the prior layer or not. In the above description of an onion the successive layers are encompassing each other when traveling from the inside to the outside. To use an ‘inverse’ onion as a metaphor for truth then the encompassing occurs as one travels from the outside to the inside. This stretches the concept of ‘encompassing’ to a point where from one POV that would be illogical and another POV, a natural progression. For one POV encompasses the other for it includes more ‘truths’. Much like 4th dimensional objects are challenging to understand from a 3 dimensional perspective, they require a similar ability to hold multiple levels of awareness at the same time. Thus ‘operating points’ are very useful to consider and apply. With all that said, to look at just this sequence, there are multiple distinctions that can be applied. To do so now would be overwhelming. It’s better to work with one, practice with it and add-on or take-away from here as other distinctions are applied. So from one POV it would seem like stepping over bars, which is true but also necessary do to the nature that some pieces of the puzzle are easier to fit before others. Using the current BM’s, the first pass would be to draw a RTL whenever possible from the same point that one drew a BM. If a FS get’s activated then as the FS is ID’d so too does it reset the OOE and also gets a new BM (and RTL asap) in the opposite direction. What makes a bar that is ID’d as a BO,T1 different and distinct from a bar that is ID’d as a BM,rev? What makes a bar that is both BO,T1 and BM,rev different and distinct from the above two? Does this change the sequence, if so what is the new sequence? If not then what’s the next distinction to add-on? In this case it would be to define and number the lateral. How many bars does the lateral extend to include? Number all the bars that are part of the lateral. Did retro get triggered? Does this or does this not change the sequence?
4th refining and loging on 03/27/19 chart. Log is attached. I'm doing my best to synchronize everything. It's not easy, but I must admit it's a very very pleasing exercise, it really stimulates the brain and I love that. I can't wait to be ok with all this, and then add some more complexity with rdbms tables, which will lead to clear clarity I have troubles with degapping. It's not that clear when comes the moment to do it on the chart. I don't manage for the now to establish a clear text or illustrated example that would show the problem. I could easierly pick some cases on the chart, and that's I will do, but I'll do se later in the day. Sometimes while doing the following chart, I felt at ease and comfortable with what I was doing when degapping requirement was coming, other times I begin to ask questions in my mind and I realize I did not ask this question before. And this create a "ow...I need to review everything to see if I always did what I just did." This happened to me on bar 76..... For the now, let's take a little break and have some meal
I'll include this on 5th refinement. Thank you ! The fact that a BO,T1 is when a prior established RTL is contradicted by a new trend going in the opposite direction, whereas a BM rev is when an established BM is both penetrated by any bar AND that the close is beyond that horizontal BM. So to speak, a BO,T1 can happen without BM,rev, whereas when there is BM,rev there's almost always BO,T1. Deductively from what I said above, I'd say like "BM,rev + BO,T1" is when the trend is totally ended and the new opposite one has already begun whereas when it's either one of the two FS only, then "the old trend is over and the new one is underway". After rereading your last post and the onion metaphor, I need a break to answer this ^^
In the cases where it is a BM,rev only; since it is a FS where is the new BM drawn? In the cases where there is a BO,T1; since it is a FS where is the new BM drawn? If another FS is ID’d on the next bar what does that mean about the prior FS’s trend segment?
- if the prior BM that is reversed was long, then the new BM is to be drawn at the top of the current bar that is BMrev, and it would be a short one. - if the prior BM that is reversed was short, then the new BM is to be drawn at the bottom of the current bar, and it would be a long one. case 1 : BO,T1 only : either the new rtl is long, so prior one was short and the new BM will be at the bottom of the BO,T1 bar, and will be a long one OR the new rtl is short, so prior one was long, and BM is to be drawn at top of the BO,T1 bar and it will be short. case 2 : BO,T1 + BMrev : this is to be merged with " - if the prior BM that is reversed was long, then the new BM is to be drawn at the top of the current bar that is BMrev, and it would be a short one. - if the prior BM that is reversed was short, then the new BM is to be drawn at the bottom of the current bar, and it would be a long one." Let me think a bit about it and I'll produce an answer.
That is sound logic. With the Combined FS, keep it simple. It’s not complicated. “In the game of monopoly you have to pass ‘Go’ to collect $200. If you collected $200, then you must have passed ‘Go’.” With your current logical operating point, see how that affects the current OOE’s of your chart and log.
It appears like your VTP gesture's are coming along quite nicely. Two things that you are in a position to include: 1) The 2nd row advancement of the OOE for OB's. Currently you draw the EE vs writing in the volume element. The event for a PP4 for example is P1/T1. The EE goes in the EE column. 2) Add a third column for a single bar's sentiment to the right of your current columns that exist for 30m and 5m.
So, kind of "BMrev takes precedence on BO,T1". In other words, If there's a BM rev, there must have been a BO,T1.
Got you, thanks a lot. " add a third column for asingle bar's sentiment [...] that exist for 30min and 5min" Do you mean what I understand ? which is "for bars that have the same sentiment both on 30min and 5min timeframe" ? Beginning the 5th refinement of my chart and log on 03/27/19 right now.
there is a couple of things I also need to define and define clearly : I'm beginning the log and chart once again and : - on bar 4, degap is required. Moving up of one tick bar 4, there is no BM anymore; But it absolutely describes a BMrev on the non-degapped chart. So, is the BMrev true or not here ? I'll say yes it is, refine my chart and log with that baseline and see what happens, if it makes sense or not along logging. -as for degapping, if I consider (and there is to) bar 4 is to be degapped, then it moves up of a tick. Then comes bar 5 which does not require degap compared to absolute bar 4, but does need it compared to relative bar 4 (after bar 4 degapped). What I wonder now is : After IDing Bar 4 and 5 price case relative to the degapped position of bar 4, is there to compare bar 6 to the adapted position of Bar 5 compared to the relative degapped position of bar 4,, and so on until there is a given bar that makes it all adjusted and no more adaptation to relative degapped position of bars is needed. If there is to do that, which sounds logic to me right now, it would be very helpful to annotate on the log in a way or another the number of ticks there is in gap at each and every moment. Example First way of seeing the cascading effect of degap : Bar 2 creates absolutely XB andis to be degapped, 1 tick-gap to degap. We move bar 2 down of 1 tick, we relatively have XB still. Bar 3 is also describing XB absolutely, and is to be degapped too compared to bar 2, 1 tick to degap. We push bar 3 down of 1 tick, we relatively still have XB. Bar 4 absolutely is OB, and is not to be degapped compared to bar 3 as their respective Open and Close are matching. We can measure bar 4. Second way (which is the one I'm gonna use now xause it fits better with how I understand the cascading effect of degap, it sounds more logic to me currently) Bar 2 creates absolutely XB andis to be degapped, 1 tick-gap to degap. We move bar 2 down of 1 tick, we relatively have XB still. Bar 3 is also describing XB absolutely, and is to be degapped too compared to bar 2, and here begins the difference : - compared to the absolute position of bar 2, bar 3 is to be 1-tick degapped, and relatively to bar 2 degapped itself, we have 2 ticks to degap bar 3 of. We push bar 3 down of 2 ticks, we relatively still have XB. Bar 4 absolutely creates OB so we can measure volume. BUT -> relatively compared to relative position of bar 3 which was degapped from bar 2 which was degapped from bar 1, we now have both a StB price case which unables to measure volume unless it increases AND we need to degap bar 4 from bar 3 cause the relative position of bar 3 resulting from the 2 prior degapping makes the open of bar 4 and the close of bar 3 relatively not matching, whereas they were matching absolutely. In the second case, I would see on bar 4 a relative StB, would annotate this in the log and not measure volume unless it's increasing compared to prior bar. and THEN, on the next bar, if the open of bar 6 matches with the absolute position of bar 5 I would stop degapping, if not I would keep on degapping. Let's refine with the second way and see how it progresses.