Ah, thank you very much. It makes perfect sense to me now. I believe this answers the second part of my question as well. Allow me to elaborate. The additional requirement, with correct nomenclature, merely states the text that I was having trouble integrating into my understanding of this EE. "If you have T for more than one peak, then you use the "leftmost" peak." --- Take the following example. P1.2 assigned, volume = 20,000. BM REV occurs, P1.1 assigned, volume = 19,000. P1.0 is assigned by Volume Test Procedure REPEAT, volume = 21,000. In order for [P2.2 - P1.1] > [P1.0 - P1.1] to be true, the third P1 has to be greater than the initial P1, which means acceleration. If I am understanding the PP1 parameters correctly, even though there is not continual acceleration from P1.2 to P1.1 to P1.0, a PP1 would still occur in the above example, correct? Tried to make a small sketch to illustrate it.
Bar naming and bar referencing is difficult. For the platform I use the maths are built by ID'ing bars correctly. Bars are ordered events. The present bar is called bar.0 As you see the present is cited as .0 In PP1 we are qualifying acceration over bars. To regard bars as accelerating, you do testing. In your writeup you show three bars where they do not even pass the P1 test. Because I wanted to have a complete system, I worked within the bounds that others set. I look at these people and their mental progress under the whims of the owner of the company they work for. Its tough. So far the company will degap quarters and days. But they will not degap bar to bar as their competitors do. tiddly is pointing out how bar to bar a huge degap is needed in an example that never could happen. Here is how it goes. we can agree to assign names to bars over time. No future bars get named at this point. Past bars get further into the past as new bars form. The forming bat is bar.0 The prior bar is bar.1 This prior bar has values: H.1, L.1, O.1, C.1 and V.1 So you can see right off, there are no platforms in use today that allow traders to get the job done simply. Owners are selling stuff to attract dumb clients. Naturally, smart people buy raw data and invent their own processing systems. For me, my mind can process whatever comes along. Making money is so available that anyone can do it quite easily with their minds. I recommend that each person use the viewing and trading platforms they wish. My criteria is to have good data all the time.
Jack, Thank you for explaining the naming of bars in greater detail. I had thought that perhaps the naming began from .0 directly after an EE has occurred, or from .0 forward when referring to a snip of a trend or price case, but now we know this is not true. I would advise everyone to switch the places of L.0 and H.0 with L.1 and H.1 in the vocabulary definitions of the Price Cases in order to correct the error I have made with bar naming.
Please look at the past charts. The combos of bars in your examples are NOT possible to have by using the test procedure correctly.
I do not yet understand what I have wrong with the illustration. Here is my thought, I cannot find the error. If an EE has occurred the black bar can be a valid P1 if volume is measurable. BM REV can occur and assign another P1. If price case gives permission and Bar closes on the other side of the BM, this can result in a new P1 with lower volume than the previous P1. Next, increasing volume with price case that gives permission is re-assignment of P1. I have a suspicion that I am over-complicating the process in trying to understand the additional requirement formula. I will continue to study the concepts and look at the charts. --- I will go through the log of [12-20] tonight, thank you for posting the corrected log. Edit - Cleared out false information.
We'll just agree to disagree regarding bar-by-bar degapping Jack. It's all good, as I've already turned rogue by logging other instruments (not ES) and starting the volume tests. I'll continue to lurk and learn, with participation where I can. Thanks, Steve
On Page Two of the log posted by Jack for [12-20], there was sequence of volume elements that I could not comprehend. For [12-20], Bar 26 is BM REV, so P1 is assigned to that bar because failsafe endings assign P1 to the failsafe bar. After that, Bar 27 had lower volume with permission, so P1 Repeat is False, and T1 is assigned. Bar 28 is Hitch, but gives permission. Volume is Higher, so T1 Repeat is False, and P2 is assigned. Bar 29 has higher volume, so I thought it would trigger a Repeat for P2. Instead it is labeled P1, and the Bar 30 is assigned P2 again on lower volume. I could not find information on this sequence on the Volume Test Procedure sheet, and no EE appears to have been triggered on Bar 28 or 29, so I do not understand how we get the P2, P1, P2 sequence. If someone could point me in the right direction of posted content about this effect, I would appreciate it. The only places I've found which refer to this is the Pre-Primary Ending sheet which states that the upper limit of PP1a is a new P1, and the A Band EE sheet [Ad] which references having P1s after P2s, so I'm sure it's just a matter of an intra-trend P1 assignment effect or something of the sort that I am not yet aware of. Edit - Ah, think I found something about it. Does it have something to do with an Ag EE that was just not written down on the log? Does Ag have some special effect of not restarting the trend because it is listed as a VEBO?
It's all about the volume testing permissions: reverse chronological, kills and gates. In looking at your log, the columns are P1, T1, P2, T2P and T2F. Well - bar 26 is assigned the P1 designation because the failsafe BM REV occurred in the prior turn. It's volume is 11421. In doing the volume test, bar 27 is compared to bar 26. The volume is lower so it's designated a T1 (vol = 9986). Bar 28 is compared to bar 27. It can't be another P1 at this point because the volume test sheet tells you that a P1 is killed after a T1 has been assigned (bar 27). The volume is higher than bar 27 so it does not meet the T1 criteria and thus you go to the "next" column - P2 with volume at 11279. At this point, your P1 = 11421, T1 = 9986 and P2 = 11279 --- a fairly narrow volume range. The next bar (29) has volume of 16141 - volume that's higher than the previously defined P1 and the previously defined P2. The volume test sheet tells you that a P1 is gated (permitted) after a P2 has been assigned (bar 28). JH indicates that you use the "leftmost" column when more than one true statement is encountered during reverse chronological testing. P1 is in the leftmost position (in a trend and also on the log) when comparing P1 and P2. The next bar (30) has volume of 12808 - volume that's higher than the previously defined P2 (bar 28) so it is designated as such. Using the different colored "rays" on your chart will help you to better SEE the volume bands. I hope this helps...
smwbbe, Thanks again for taking the time to explain these concepts to me. I've been feeling some vague confusion in understanding the Volume Test Procedure over the past few days and was hoping eventually it would work itself out after going through some charts and logs. Your post seemed to be the last piece to get things to click into place. I couldn't quite grasp how Reverse Chronology test played out in the procedure, but now I think I understand why. I was stuck thinking about things in too much of a linear fashion. For some reason, it didn't explicitly occur to me that an element is killed only between it's kill criteria and it's gate criteria. Well, after it is active in the trend. At all other times besides between Kill and Gate, it is tested for T or F, and then left to right priority takes place during assignment. The funny thing is that I would even single out pieces of text explaining that process because I knew I didn't quite comprehend their meaning, but for some reason I wasn't able to put the pieces together yet. Anyway, great content as always! The progress seems slightly harder to come by now than it was learning the price cases and Volume Permission, but I haven't had a day go by yet where I didn't feel like I advanced my knowledge to some degree. Thank you for all of the patience and participation put forth by everyone involved with the Journal