Ditto. Which is why I focus so much on the texts. Not sure how to read these charts though. I don't see any consistently special about Lat7, LatBO, some lats don't seem to be counted and some RTL's are fanned. There's also reference to Lat Rev, which seem to imply EE within Lat, but no P3P. Lat7 seems experimental in the charts. This one has some blue light on Lat7: Blue column outside Lat: Lat7 attempt:
My laterals MADA is based on 2 (undisputed) pieces of jack's work... 1) Lats are not for making money. Of course volatility affects money-making, but by definition Lats are non-dom and significant price volatility is/can not be "true" or optimal with declining volume and/or associated with decrease(d/ing)pace. The overall duration of a Lat, until BO, also plays into money-making, but duration is not a JH factor, therefore trader discipline is the active partner. 2) Lats track SUB/sub fractals. Personally, I do not (intentionally) trade sub or sub-sub fractals. In fact, I have read passages where TL's are not to be used in Lats. With no TLs, there are no FS-EEs. Still process other EE's tho. And don't forget about fanning. ("knowing") "Everything" is not important to me in order to trade JH successfully. In the case of Lats, if I am not in a trade and I have a Lat4, I'll wait for BO to enter. I do not (intentionally) trade sub or sub-sub fractals. If I am in a trade, if I have Lat4 it's decision time. The active n-1 turn, volatility, pace, time of day, containers, gaussians, and more, all play into my ADA. I very much like learning/refining based in and on real-time experience. And since I don't know what I don't know, I'll just say one or two bars is not going to cause me to seek a different vocation or lifestyle. When/if/as those unknown bars or happenings appear, those are my potential a-ha opportunities.
Start with; Box with yellow fill = Sym Box with orange fill = lat3 Box with pink fill = StB, StR after lat3 = true, internals are numbered and the boxes are no longer used for that lateral. The blue columns of lat7 are within the lateral defined by lat3. These bars greater than lat3 are not encapsulated within a shaded box. Blue columns are lat7 exists and where lat7 is not a BO. The BO of lats have different colored blobs at different lat bar numbers. The charts are displays of coded annotations. Mentally degapping can change the above. This was the limitation of TN and caused so much confusion and frustration. There is a gap between what is being displayed and the logic by which the true price permission/suppression circuitry is being activated. This points to what Jack described as perception = 10% sensing + 90% inference. As you stated, by focusing on the text descriptions, one's inference is being shifted so that one's perception can change. This was also the functional aspect of drills - to build a body of referential inference by which to perceive what up to that point was imperceivable. The placement of BM's and rtl's can only get cleared up with annotating charts and more importantly filling out logs. Posting the result supports the process.
Something that you are doing is putting more emphasis on price annotations a-la SCT when RDBMS is much more oriented to the sequence of volume measurements. RDBMS uses price as a tool for suppression or measurement of volume, if you are expecting to see tapes built like SCT to give insight into RDBMS, it would be easier to think of it more like an overlay of different complimentary methods. Price formations do not define the trends, volume sequences do. Thank you very much for this, it's providing me a first step towards some clarification. ---------------- Another thing is that in your examples you are not including the open. The doji is an important aspect of this work, it's the constant indicator of current and developing sentiment. It always matters for it reveals the dominant leg of the bar even though the price case form indicates continuation or change. On the precise example you're referring to, I did not put the opens simply because it's deductible from the prior bar's close, the current close ubication and the color of the bar. Anyway, I'll take this into account and will be posting from now examples including open. You second sentence is giving me some more clarification again. ------------------- Something you can add to your charts is the 30m doji. This is similar to the BM but it is blue in color, starts at the open of the 30m and spans the 6 5m bars that a 30m bar includes. This will give one an idea of sentiment unfolding during the 5m as it relates to the 30m fractal. Ok, thank you for that new input as for the Doji of 30mn. BUT The second sentence lets me perplex. In the past, you (and I've read it from JH too) stated the Timeframe and the levels of fractal are different differenciations. Here you seem to be talking about the "30min fractal". Not sure what you're precisely talking about. ------------------------- With that said; Bar2 - 1st tape Bar3 - 2nd tape, acc with ftt Bar4 - 3rd tape, fan with ftt, with form Depending on what volume is doing with give you more clarity of BO,T1 or not. So, that's how I see what you say --------------- The "more info" way is the correct way on how drawing is done. A VE always expands the LTL. In this example you have not drawn an expanded channel LTL. So, that's how I see it : ------------- FFF is in the context of drawing the Fastest Fractal First. In bar-by-bar analysis sometimes Moves are contained within a single bar. Trends can end in three ways: 1) By being incomplete and ending sooner than 3 moves. 2) By following a three move 'pattern'. Dom -> nonDom -> Dom ending at ftt. 3) By going into 'drift' where an odd number of moves extends 2) That is clear --------------- EE's with the exception of 2 are volume measurements. This is worth repeating, sometimes Moves can occur on and/or within a single bar. I know that in terms of your differentiation, drawing rtl of tapes is what you have been practicing. If you remember the context by which you started this was to start at the market's basic granularity. Think of it more as a drill than as THE WAY. As you progress, there will be times where a rtl cannot be drawn geometrically. As you progress you'll naturally come to a place where it makes sense why and where this occurs and when it does not. The key to this is exploring laterals on a deeper level and the function of "squishing". From all I understand, I'd say to be more precise that EE's with the exception of 2 are strictly volume measurements. BM is strictly price measurement, BO,T1 is both price and volume meausrement, and in the 33s remaining some merge some volume and price conditions, while other ones only focus on volume measurement. I get you for the "drill rather than THE WAY". As for squishing function : I'm happy you're bringing this on the table. I've read a lot about it but unfortunately I've not taken notes enough to make a condensed synthesis so that I could have clearly in mind what this means. As far as I remember, understand and know this function, here is how I see it : two PCs regardless of what the volume is doing, allow to measure volume. The 8 remaining can either also allow to do it, or not, depending on what volume is doing, AND there's also the case of a LAT in which from Lat4 we start (from either Lat2 or Lat4 depending of the H/L of Lat4) to measure volume regardless of the PC that is at hand. The only thing I remember and understand as for squishing function is simply kind of merging any internals (there are 8) into one bar, conserving first O and second C at their position, and then begin to see new PCs in function of what comes next. I'll start to do that as a baseline and will further refine it step by step using your next comments on this and my understanding based on more notes taken on what i'm reading nowadays. Here is an example of how I'd see it for now : I'll read this : edit: Squishing, retro and arrows for Use Larger are referenced in post 173, 203, 389, 419, 423, 615, 616, 624,... -------------- RDBMS is a complete system and it is volume oriented. Doing MADA and logging the VTP with turns and trends is the most important thing right now. With your current distinctions, there will be a lot of FS's logged. The intent is to get you to engage in the process. When it becomes second nature to log all the columns in the log, then in iterative refinement, you can see how to refine and back off ID'ing so many FS's to include how to make them longer volume sequences. To do so now becomes overwhelming and leads to paralysis. This is also why documenting your "operating points" are important. By logging via a variety of "operating points" one begins to create a flexibility of thinking. As long as one is consistent with exploring any particular "operating point", the process will subconsciously lead one to ask questions that will support in gaining greater insight and clarity and other "operating points" to explore. Thank you for this help. ------------- Attempt on DD as for "EE", "Not EE", "Not Not EE". - What is something ? -> all it can be less what it can't. - What does "can" refer to ? -> to the fulfilled condition (this is A) - What does "less" refer to ? -> to exclusion (this is B) - What does "can't" refer to ? -> to the non-fulfilled condition (this is C) - What does "condition" refer to ? -> it depends on what we're talkking about. - What are we talking about ? -> EEs - What is an EE ? -> it is X. - For X, what is A ? -> a description (1 condition) + additional requirements (1 condition) - For X, what is B ? ->it is what it is absolutely - For X what is C ? -> it is what it is absolutely - How many conditions (containing maybe subconditions) does X = an EE need to be ? -> 2, a description and additional requirements (AddReq). -What are the possible surge as for the fulffillment of the 2 conditions on any EE ? -> there are 3. Either the two conditions are fulfilled, or just one, or none. - What if the two conditions are fulfilled ? -> the EE IS - What if only one condition is fulfilled ? -> the EE is NOT, for one reason. - What if none of the two conditions is fulfilled -> the EE is NOT..NOT. It is NOt, two times, for two reasons. Example : What does a PP1 need to be ? -> 1 pre-condition setting the scene to measurement ; three P1s in a row (knowing that internal does not kill) - > 1 condition : acceleration on the dependant variable -> 1 AddReq : acceleration on the independant variable What possibility can surge once three P1s in a row appear ? -> 4 possibilities - there is acc on price AND the AddReq is fulfilled = there IS PP1 - there is acc on price AND the AddReq is NOT fulfilled = there is NOT PP1 - there is NOT acc on price AND the AddReq is fulfilled = there is NOT PP1 - there is NOT acc on price AND the AddReq is NOT fulfilled = there is NOT NOT PP1. Not sure about all this, but it does make sense for me at the moment. If true, then it would open the gate towards all "Not/Not" EEs concept. Thank you @tiddlywinks , it's nice to see you again. Thank you for taking some of your time to provide content, I appreciate it a lot. I'm studying your post. In addition to that, I had already seen that pdf you attached, but I did not study it thoroughly. I'll do it now. I'll post a log and chart annotated when i've done it, so in some 2hours or so, trying to incorporate : - what I understand about the correct way of taping - what I understand about the correct way of ID BO,T1 - what I understand about squishing - what are the cascading effects generated by all this AND - I'll give my brain a little rest before attempting to label turn/trends. I feel like something in my mind has moved a bit as for the way to use it. I have to review and observe how the MT/MR are built. I feel like I see now something I did not see before. Don't know yet where it will lead me, nor if it will be correct. Anyway, as stated by @Sprout , the most important thing now for me is to deal with MT/MR. And the only exercise that lead to this is posting logged and annotated charts, and that's exactly what i'll begin to do ASA I send this post. Have a great day
I talked too quick. I forgot I had to eat... this may sound silly, but when I'm working, I just forget everything else. Beginning the log in 5min. Expect it to be posted in some 3 hours
At bar1 draw a blue horizontal line like a BM that spans from the open of bar1 and spans to include bar 6. If bar1 was the open of the 30m candle this horizontal line represents the 30m doji and the 5m bars are the changing intervals of sentiment within it. At bar7 draw another 30m horizontal doji composed of 6 5m information parcels.
@WchPl : PP1 - Either a bar ID PP1, or it does NOT. "NOT" being NOT PP1, ie. absence of PP1 (accel), etc. on a third P1. There is no "NOT NOT PP1" or "NOT NOT EE" that I've seen. On 4th P1 you know you have four consecutive P1's, and when NOT PP1, another EE might ID instead. I'm probably wrong, but maybe NOT T2P/T2F and NOT NOT T2P/T2F has to do with K-Band PFP and FPF sequences, though not entirely sure what is refered to. However, I do DD it's about new id of Events that looks similar, but which is not the same same in the OOE as normal T2P and T2F. It's measurements that go sub from a normal OOE (P1-T1-P2-T2P-P3P). Ie. FIRST T2p is DV, while REPEAT T2p is IV. So not entirely same ID.
Before beginning the log, a pair of complementary contributions : - I will relog the same chart I lastly posted : 06/05/19. - I will incorporate a blue BM on 30min bars. AND Here is what I have in mind after some attempts to DD what was wrong about my comprehension of the MT/MR : The MT lists C-turns as EE present in the n list. If the n EE is not in the n list, one thing that is sure is that there is no C-turn. And the thing that is still not sure is if we're still in Set A or if we're into Set B. I know from you @Sprout that the test that give the answer to that is the MR's. In addition to that, I know that we can find in-between "( )" an A-turn for example in a Set A. Which is contradictory if we refer to the MT and the description of the Set A of trends at first sight, but if we're not to see things this way, it means we must find a differenciation that will provide a reason why to find an in-between A-turn inside a Set A. So, what I can deduce for now is that after the MT test, if we find an absence of C-turn cause the n EE is not in the list, we : - know there is no C-turn - which is the next turn in the OOE of turns when a C-turn is false ? -> A-turn. - then , which Set of trends are we in at this moment ? -> in Set A. - How do we know if this is true ? - If the MR does not say "stay in the Set A"; - I think the MR lets one to see if there is....a move reversal - on which turn is there reversal moves ? -> on C-turns - which fractal are we to make the C-turn to C-turn reversals from ? -> the TF - so, if the MR indicates the reversals, I think that if the MR test is true, then it means there is a reversal, so a C-turn. - so if MT says there is no C-turn, then there is two possibilities : -> the MR will locate a reversal a C-turn an then invalidates the MT result -> the MR will not locate a reversal and then the MT was saying right, so to speak. I feel there is something wrong, missing, in what I just said. At least, I'm able to think about it. I feel this is linked with sub(-sub) fractals level. Like if : let's say we're in Set A, we have the n EE not listed in the n list of the MT. We have A-turn. The MR says "false" to locate a move reversal. So, we have A-turn and we're in Set B. OR let's say we're in Set A, we have the n EE not listed in the n list of the MT. We have A-turn. Then , the MR says "true" to locate a reversal. Then...we have A-turn being part of a subfractal contained by a slower fractal, with this slower fractal being a Set A still. All what is written in italics, is the kind of messy DD that, normally, I choose not to send because I know I fail to come to something clear, understandable, true, correct, proper. I think now it's not a bad idea to post it, even though I know it's a mess and incorrect.
My bad you're correct, although what I wanted to express was the logical path of reasoning to come to "Not" and "Not Not" concepts. Thank you. I agree with you here. From what I understand for now, it deals with the "that look similar". I became aware of this "similarity" that is possible to surge when doing my EE catalog. And, when you rethink about JH's "almost perfect is not enough", there's even more to think the "Not" and "Not Not" deal with a less or more closeness degree from perfection of fulfilled conditions. Also, I'm not sure if it's with Ag and Ae, but I remember that when doing my EE catalog once again and I was building my EE mindmap, I sometimes encountered situations in which there was a possibility to see two A-band EEs, but the fact was that one of those two had a description that stuck more closely to the scenario encountered. Both EE could be IDd, but one a bit more than the other -> less or more closeness degree from perfection of fulfilled conditions. I think I know how to solve this. Holy wow....so much work still ahead... ........ and at the same time, weirdly, I feel close ..