Correction : What if we've just had a second A-turn in a Set D ? -> the next turn can only be B-turn because of how the trend in the MT is built.
Text search through Jack's posts, although some sentences may be quotes by others inside Jack's response post. You may find back to the thread/post by searching ET. After reading alot of Jack, I somehow can guess if it's Jack original or someone else being confused! Anyhow, each concept is testable, although may need later revisit.
Great writeup. You've come so far! You can certainly feel satisfaction for the level of comprehension you have attained. Comments within quoted text. I'm not sure what you would be apologizing for, you are under no obligation. Your due diligence is inspiring!
Thank you very much for your kind words and comments @Sprout . I deeply hope all is still working out for you. As for the sentiment of satisfaction I could feel, it will be concretely here when the result of my comprehension lead me to change my life more than it's already doing. Currently as I'm working, I feel a lot of satisfaction for being able to develop, compile, combine and think deeply about all this becaue all this is related to the most important thing in my life. I won't develop it here. Anyway, yes I feel satisfied but most of all because I have demonstrated to myself such a tenacity, stamina, strength and self-sacrifice/confidence that I've had already felt that was in me since the beginning, but I had never had the opportunity to let me reveal it concretely to myself. I'm doing it now and this is really fullfilling. AND What I'm searching for now is the satisfaction of being able to extract the full offer of the market each and every day. I don't know when this will come. Maybe soon. For my apologize : as you'll remember, one day a moment came when you told me that you were not gonna be answer me nor help me more until I'd begin a public Journal. I did begin that Journal, we're filling it currently. Plus, you said my work could be a light for some workers actively searching and working in silent on the same stuff. So if I did apologize, it was because even though you say I'm not under any obligation, you put me one day under the obligation to begin something public if I wanted you to keep on contribuing to my path. So each time I'm kind of absent, in other words each time at least 2 or 3 days pass whithout me posting anything, I consider that is not a fault, but I just consider I could do better. AND My apologize about the length was because after rereading it once posted I thought it would have been better to sequence it and post it in several messages. BUT, now I think it's better to have done the way I did cause it's a unique block where one can find manythings not scattered. So my apologize for this detail is not at hand anymore ^^ You may know me more than a bit now. You said in the past I'm a bit of perfectionnist, so as anyone who is, I'm tough with myself. I'm sure you got me Studying your answers currently. YOU are also inspiring to me. Thanks a lot one more time.
It seems lengthy posts encourage lengthy replies! Something I might want to explore is relationships of possibilities, of WMCN, and turning WTF into the WWT part. Why do I say this? If the system is complete, there is no WTF, thus no WWT? But granularity of markets are sometimes finer than caught by current finite rules. Imagine or try boolean rules on arbitrary even continuously different tf scales, leading to signal variance exposing the granularity of boolean expressions. Even if no need for mtf, there may be need for WWT, in addition to the three failsafes (BM's + Retro). Maybe for extremely liquid instruments with indexes as underlying this is less of a "problem", or just sync n' forget. However for stocks and less liquidity, PA are sometimes even more counter intuitive no matter what, even with quite a bit of trading activity. Though, some of these "moves" and gaps could also be fundamental sometimes. Ironically, WWT eases WMCN when regarded through the lenses of deduction. So even though there may be no noise or flaws, at one time, Jack did deal with flaws, and any ATS need to deal with granularity beneath certain thresholds, plus there are fundamental and data quality reasons also to be dealt with. Unavoidably, sometimes there just may come BM Rev's after BM Rev's and gaps behind BM's . This seems more exposed in RDBMS due to the finer resolution and anticipatory nature. Maybe MT and MR resolves this beyond IF/APA, though I suspect the above might need some dealings with beforehand. And, @WchPl, if anybody were worthy of your writeups, they have already answered by now, for now. No need to feel obligated. Feed freedom.
I need a rest of some days concerning my work on MT/MR/Turns/Trends. I will for 1, 2 or 3 days do some logs and refine my ability to perform VTP, while doing parallely a deeper work into the EEs and its mindmap. I put this thing aside since I began with the MT/MR, and sooner or later I'd have to have it complete. Today it is not, so back to the last known good. I need to redo something I understand and refine it, then I'll come back to my work on the MT/MR/Turns/Trends. I feel the DD will come soon as for : - when in a Set A, when an absence of C-turn comes for that the n EE is not in the right list, then an A-turn is there BUT it is still part of an Set A although there is NO A-turn into a Set A; one is to test the MR before advancing towards Set B. - the volume measurement is for the TF, and it's from the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made. I'm stuck on this. I don't want to force it too many days in a row on it, the last time I did this kind of thing I finally had to spend one week away from the work, and I don't like this, it's nothing good. So, back to a last known good, let's refine it, I'll review my EE catalog, perform some logs and charts annotations with all I know. Plus, it will give me the opportunity to talk about/expose something I have in mind since a bit, and that I didn't mention yet. I need to refind some confidence and some will to face something hard. For me, understanding the two above points mentionned is cruelly hard. Posting soon
Rethinking about it, correct me @Simples if I'm wrong, but I feel pretty sure about that you were the one who talked about this to me already. Here is a thing : Bar 1 : EE, beginning of a long trend, BM long. Bar 2 : XB, a tape is built bar 3 : XB, the tape extinguishes and that second tape built for the appearance of the third bar shows acceleration. Bar 4 : XB and : -> if we consider the rtl that is at had is the LAST TAPE'S, there is a BO,T1. -> if we consider the rtl that is at hand is the FIRST TAPE'S that includes bar 4, there is NO BO,T1. Since I began the be able to fill the log at let's say 80%, I noticed that I arbitrary felt the convention was to consider the LAST ESTABLISHED TL, so to speak in this example I'd see a BO,T1. Why do I see the thing this way ? Back to the basics There are two ways of taping this. One way will make appear more info contained into the bars than the other one. As : Less info if done this way More if that way I almost always tape the "more info" way. In the same vein, I feel like not seeing a BO,T1 on the first example I provided would be loosing from info that is coming sooner that when monitoring the action considering the first tl established although its includes the second one. This can change many things because all my recent work and attempts to DD on the MT/MR led me to that : I already posted this. It's the "one tape converting itself into a FF". I arrive at the same result here : If there is a BO,T1 at bar 4 AND there is a BM,rev at bar 5, then I begin to think there is already a FF created although the litterature states we need three moves so three FFFs to get one FF. If there is BO,T1, then there is an EE. If there is an EE, then the TS is over. If the TS is over and there is an EE, then there is a Turn. If there is a turn, an opposite trend is beginning. On this example, the opposite trend was short and lasted for one bar. Then there is another EE, which is BM,rev. If there is BM, rev there is an EE so a new opposite trend is coming up. If a new trend is coming up, we're having a third one. We've had then three moves : long/short/long. BUT, we've not had the archetypal pattern described by three contradictory tapes lading to a first FF. I wonder then, here, if when bar 5 comes, there is a FF as exposed in thick blue line or not. It's like talking about the the deep and the form. In the deep, yes there are three moves; in the form, there is just one. I'm currently wondering is we need : -the form and the deep to align to state there is a FF here -the deep only matters no matter what forms says. Although I'm unsure for now, I'd rather say by DD that the deep only counts. Why would I tend to say that ? Cause in the following, although we do have the form saying 3 times (3 XR's) the trend is short, there is never any EE neither on price nor on volume. So I'd say although we have the contradictory tapes here, we only have one extended tape and NO FF... this would change many things when building the interlocking fractals dimensions and this is linked to the MT/MR also, which is my sticking point. So for now I DD the deep takes precedence. I'll now do a log/chart and post it, taping and labeling fractals in this way and see where I come to.
MADA w/o carryover, turns/trend Sets o 06/05/19 & Logs I notice there are a lot of things that, even when I'm ok with the MT/MR, are still not clear.
From my STM and keeping in mind my posts are suggestive for research and validation: RDBMS is bar by bar. At some point there for various reasons, maybe a first bar, a P1 is ass. BM and RTL also immediate. However, RTL need validation, BM remain active until trend end. What are the rules for creating and extinguishing RTL? So BM is on very same bar, RTL probably deploys in earliest forthcoming bar. Alas one and only one bar not enough for RTL, RTL is kept for some bars. P1 ass. kickstarts volume OOE. BM+RTL is part of PA OOE. What are the rules to sync PV OOE? Established TL develops during trend, accordingly to P1 ass. bar. So you keep parallellogram until removed. So what can be done with that very same parallellogram, there are 3 main altercations, with rules accordingly. Ie. Fanning happens on ______ volume and ________ bar. BM+RTL is kept for FS. When are FS active? Btw, not saying this must resolve MT/MR. Consulting MR for MT is interesting point, though also keep in mind MR is yet incompleted. The above is different from your current operating point, which I believe contains alot of in-depth SCT than RDBMS (BBT, tapes, or even goats for some). I believe RDBMS may be in a way simpler (though not easier) than keeping track of all that, but also is not as "pretty" as when longer periods of PA are curve fit.