there is a couple of things I also need to define and define clearly : 1- on BM 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. 2 - on Degap 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 3 - on acceleration PP!s What I wonder about this is when to declare there is acceleration or not. It looks when looking a chart, more complex and subtle than it seemed at first sight. PP!s dealing with acceleration concern 3 bars. How to say there is acceleration bewteen 3 steps ? When it goes faster between the last 2 points than between the first two ones. So : - If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 11K and the third P1 is at 13K, is there acceleration ? If yes, then the parameters present here and that led to see an acceleration/ an absence of non acceleration are : volume is INC two times + volume is showing CONTINUATION + the gap between bar 2 and bar 3 is bigger than the one between bar 1 and bar 2. So three parameters : orientation of volume + volume move + bigger gap in the end than at beginning. What is/are the parameter(s) that lead here to say there is acceleration ? Let's go forward. - If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 9K and third P1 is at 7K, what are the nature of the parameters : volume oritentation : short two times volume move : continuation short second gap compared to first one : bigger If there is acceleration here, then it means we must at least have both continuation AND bigger 2nd gap on volume, no matter of the orientation of volume. - If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 9K (or 11K) and third P1 is at 11K (or 9K), is there acceleration ? If yes, then it means the only parameter that leads to see an acceleration is the 2nd gap compared to prior one, no matter if volume shows change from INC to DEC and vice versa. For the refinement I'm doing now, I'll choose to see what happens if I consider there is acceleration by comparing only the second gap compared to the first 1, ignoring the volume the nature of each volume move between the three bars and the continuity/change of it. One last thing about this : some PPs concerning acceleration or not, deal with the "you have x this in a row/one after another". What I wonder is : what if a WAIT happens between these "x this". Example : bar 1 is P2, bar 2 is WAIT, bar 3 is P2, bar 4 is P2. They accelerate. IS there PP1a ? If yes, then the WAIT does not affect the "in the row" aspect of ID'd P2s. For now, I will consider the "WAIT" is an event like any other one and brokes the sequence. So in the example I used, I'd say there is no PP1a.
sorry about the messy posting, I did not realize the double posting. The second post was the good one
5th refinement on 03/27/19. Degap is the only thing causing some issues. The drawn example I posted above really defines perfectly what is complex. Even though I said what I'm gonna stick to as for degapping, there are always moments in where I find myself a bit lost, beginning again to ask myself questions. Do I conserve the relative position, do I add the ticks in gap collected etc. This shows i'm not perfectly clear with the concept. Nevertheless, here are the first 3/5th of the chart and log. I take a little break and will be posting the end soon. A couple of hours or so.
On some bars this is the case. On other bars there is only a BM,rev. Look to the number of bars in the OOE trend segment for clarity.
If bar3 was a BO,T1, and bar4 was a BM,rev. Then as per the definition of a BM,rev, Bar4 would have been a bar that closed against Bar3’s BM. If Bar4’s close doesn’t close against the previous BM, then the OOE started by bar3 remains intact and doesn’t reset thereby advancing the trend to the next element. As for degapping, specifically for you, better to consider the n-1 bar being moved to adjust for the gap. Once that is done, then it is set as a set of past bars locked as a degapped chart up to the point of the n bar. Unless in the case of an assigned P1, decreasing volume is evident of a trough not a peak.
I thought until now that when any bar closes against ANY past established BM, it was a BM rev. As I assigned P1 on bar 1, I put a BM long at its bottom, and as it was broken by bar 4's close, I put BMrev on bar 4. This will make a huge difference to know, note and build my mind with that. It's surely something I should have known since long, and I apologize that I did not. I don't take notes enough, manifestly. Thank you very much for your help on this. It is crucial. So now, I know when a BM is established, there can only be a BMrev if this last established BM is broken by any close against it. If a new BM is established along the way with no BMrev in between, then this new BM becomes the new operating BM from which be on alert as for an eventual BMrev. Do you confirm any assigned P1 goes with its assigned BM ? I will refine considering the above statement is true for now. I'm gonna stick to that, and think about what this really means. Going for a 6th refinement right now Sincerly, I could never have believed this log would be a so interesting, stimulating and enjoyable exercise to do. I enjoy it very much. Thanks a lot for so much clarification, hope the day is going nice for you.
I feel I need to reconsider this. What is true about acceleration concept in itself : it means going faster between B and C than between A and B. BUT What are we talking about when dealing with PP1 ?->peaks. What is a peak ? an increasing orientation. SO, what can mean an acceleration of P1's ? -> three P1's in a row in a continuation of INC volume. Let's consider this now, rather than what I said in previous post. Therefore, to begin : on Bar 10, last one of the chart, I will not put PP1 being as they are going down. Let's see what it produces.
Although I notice now P1 is not valid on Bar 10, but T1 is, I conserve my reconsidering of the PP1 labelisation .