I have been following this thread. In order to get better understanding I have also started reading Butt-thread (done about 20%). In both these threads Jack Hershey has mentioned "Modrian Table". I have done search but I am unable to locate this table. I will appreciate it if someone could give me a link. Thanks.
Okay, so I took another stab at your chart with the assumption that the open and close marks remain fixed, and the software adjusts the position of the bar in order to De-Gap it. If that assumption is incorrect, then this set of logs is irrelevant as well. I began to mark the differences between our charts, but I ended up with over 10 of them, mostly due to differences in Lateral annotation, so I won't list them all. However, it seems that I have interpreted the instructions to be as such: IF [H.0 > or = H.1 AND H.2, AND L.0 < or = L.1 AND L.2], THEN LATERAL 3 For example, see Bar 19. Both Bar 20 and 21 do not exceed the bounds of Bar 19, so I mark this as Lat 3 and carry the lateral until the close outside of the bounds of Bar 19 on Bar 24. The Hitch on Bar 20 has less volume than Bar 19, so Bar 19 gets a UL, and we have a WAIT from Bar 20 - Bar 23 until the BO XB on Bar 24 which has a bar close outside the bounds of Bar 19. There is a RETRO on Bar 22 because of Lat 4, but as of my current understanding, that does not affect the Primary event column, but only alerts us to track the volume events on the sub-fractal level. However, you will mark consecutive formations instead of beginning a lateral as early as I do, and I couldn't figure out your parameters based off the log. Hopefully we can get another mind in here to weigh in. -- I've attached my page of the log. Ignore the bad formatting, I had to print an extra copy remotely and the margins don't transfer correctly that way for some reason.
You are correct about the way I process LATS... old (current) methods are hard to break! I count 0 --> 3. my LAT3 should be LAT4 according to this method. The actual LAT BOs should be the same bar but a diff LAT number for larger LATS. I did not recognize minimal (only 3 bar) LATs. I can make an earnest effort to change this. FWIW... earlier I asked Jack about price scale equivalence regarding more granularly quoted instruments like YM and TF. He agrees a tick is a tick no matter the instrument. The reason I use 4 bars instead of 3 is because of this quotation granularity. I do not want to be quick on the draw to make a LAT determination for the primary instruments that I trade. Frankly it serves me well, but as I say, I can make an earnest effort to honor the 3 bar LAT determination going forward. Btw, I seldom (aka rarely) trade ES. Never liked the ES tic size which is 60% arbitrage versus it's momma, the SP contract. On to my primary question... Is my WAIT processing correct (for cases that are correct) ?
Well, it appears that we use the same methods for processing the WAIT commands for two bar internal formations, so I think that we both understand the correct methodology. I'm not sure if you're just conducting a time-saver by leaving these blank, but Lateral 3 and onward always trigger the WAIT command. Even if you're beginning Laterals on 4, the WAIT command should be in effect from 4 onward for the whole lateral. However, It seems like once a RETRO is triggered on Lat 4, WAIT is still annotated in the primary event column, but the Volume Test Procedure resumes like normal after going back in time to the beginning of the lateral, and continues to bridge back to primary events without any special effects when the Lateral BO occurs. Although, the BO of a Lateral is more likely to be accompanied by some sort of EE, or so it seems, which always restarts things from P1 either on the current bar (if Failsafe) or the next measurable bar (all other EE). However, I definitely need some more time and practice in order to be confident explaining things in this area. My conclusions here are more likely to be wrong because I have not been taught directly or have practiced as much in that area. There are also a few tweaks I still need to nail down in annotating successive formations / laterals. I think I'm getting closer to understanding the order of precedence, and one of my current theories to explain the conflicting signals I've been perceiving is that there is a volume distinction which dictates whether we use a squished bar for labeling a price case or not. I'm sure the little nuances will begin to fall into place more rapidly when more correct charts and logs begin to be released, but until then it's a little harder to understand the subtleties just from pouring through all the text. I can make educated deductions, but I need them to be verified by someone or be able to check them against the correctly logged actual situation to know for sure.
Also, Jack, I will be trying to start building LTM for the Volume Test Procedure process alongside of learning the 35 EE. Here is your chart from [10-30]. I understand almost all of the annotations, but why isn't there an rtl from Bar 31 to 32? I thought at first that perhaps it had something do with the T1 REPEAT, but I saw other instances with T1 repeated that still had an rtl. I thought that maybe it was because of the Stitch B, but I couldn't draw any solid conclusions. Is there something else I'm missing? Also, on your log, Bar 69 is listed as P1 check check [P1 acceleration x1]. I thought that it would be a T1. What information creates a P1 re-assignment instead? Thank you for all of the content, time, and effort that you've put into this thread so far. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do in order to help the other learners or to build my own mind more effectively.
Chart+Log, 12/24/13 Good day to modify my LAT determination. Still no Volume testing done. Happy Holidays!
I appreciate all the work being done. You are making gret progress in doing the 20 days. Now I will sppend several days going through the transition to expert from a scratch start. At this state of the art for trading, it is clear that vendors really do not support the trading public with what is needed. I will provide written atachments on theory so as to not cloud the tooling part of trading with too much intellectual content. Trading only requires that a person have inference to match sensing. I see a lot of really great preparation being done. As has already appeared it will be necessary for some of you to dump your vendors if you are to eliminate the many handicaps involved with presenting data in at least a minimal way. So I will begin to help you learn to do the MA of MADA in detail. We will get to the Modrian table very soon. Be sure to have big erasers on hand.