There’s four ways that BO,T1’s occur. First it’s a failsafe so as such it is defining a rapid change in sentiment as price XO’s a RTL. This RTL can be at any established tape/traverse/channel by pt3 of price. Volume does not have to be between any previous bars. The first is the easiest to see for the trend has progressed and logged P1 and T1 on the previous bars. The third bar is the BO,T1. The second is similar to the above but the BO occurred on T1 bar. The third occurs intrabar but the final form looks like a peak and not a trough. The peak is from accelerating volume in opposite price direction after the T1 has occurred in the previous price direction. This underscores why MADA produces different results than backtesting data that is EOB only. MADA is a forward testing concept and produces different results than backtesting. It gives the ability to ‘carve’ turns. The fourth is when price XO the RTL further along the OOE. For me, I began to log these as not-BO,T1’s. They XO’s the RTL but not directly after a P1. They are BO,T1’s and also not a typical BO,T1 as I understood them. This might be an invention but since my trading is focused on DOM traverses, these nBO,T1’s brought insight into the notion around ‘not’ and ‘not,not’ that are seen on Jack’s earlier logs of the VTP. In working this stuff out it’s helpful to have at the back of the mind Jack’s assertion of and concepts around ‘extracting the full offer of the market.’ The two pillars - being ‘in’ the market AND ‘being on the right side’ of the market in any given moment.
You might be thinking of IB’s. Stitches by their 2 bar geometry are not internals -unless there was a previous larger bar forming a lateral that the stitch qualifies to be within. Trading within laterals (unless holding through) is one of the more difficult aspects to work through. To process laterals start with the simplest 3bar form. Once a lat3 is triggered - no wait on any bar until the lateral ceases to be. The fourth bar only triggers retro when it too is an IB of the lateral. Price formation is what defines a lateral. IV’s on bar2 or bar3 of lateral influence it’s ability to be measured and is independent of whether it’s qualified to be part of a lateral or not. This is where UL on the VTP comes into play. Laterals can be fractal and have laterals within laterals.
Nice explanation and maybe a start on laterals for me. I was thinking of this post, and there are others also where stitches are treated as internal case, ie. not translation bar.
I probably shouldn't join this convo. As I've mentioned before, I am not a good teacher of this stuff, unless sitting side-by-side. My ways are simplistic, a requirement for me regarding real-time trading. Part of MY simplication is a rigid adherence to gaussian structure. All that said, I recall a line from the original Jurrasic Park movie... You're scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. That's me... I probably shouldn't join this convo, but I will. Bar 89 thru 93 is R2R, pt1 and pt2. Bar 95, the confirm of a Lat, is pt3. Which came first, the bar itself, or the confirm of a lat? I say the bar itself. Volume on bar 95 gives permission. It is IP with DV. It is non-dom. It is pt3. Bar 96 gives permission and confirms pt3. Of importantce is the fact we are in a Lat, not yet exited. Look at the pts within the Lat. Low of Bar 93 is pt1, high of bar 93 is pt2, low of bar 95 is pt3, high of bar 96 is ftt. Bar 97 ends the lat, with dominance, IV/DP. Volume is higher than pt2 at Bar 93, and we have a new pt2. Bar 98 is an interesting bar. Accelerating the RTL (conforming with new pt2) makes the DV/IP of bar 98 a new pt3. If the RTL acceleration was not done on the lat exit bar, BOT1 or a BM on the low of bar 98 may have been ID'd. A similar dilemma on bar 99, all depending on at which location the RTL acceleration takes place ... So is it FBO, or confirm of pt3 with ve? I say confirm pt3 + ve. Bar 100 is ftt. Bar 101 is another interesting bar, OB of course... DV means its not a follow through ftt. DV means it is not a pt1. As an EE, bar 101 OB is not an EE. It is not an RTL touch either. I would BM the high of bar 101, continuing short. In the end, Bar 104, upon crossing the RTL, would have been a reversal. Maybe the above helps look at things in a simpler, albeit less analytical way. For me, it's all about putting MADA to use in real-time, for the purpose recognizing sentiment, thereby making money, also in real time. Unfortunately, my guess is that this post will confuse.
Reading a bit about retro / lat4, I'm wondering if the following could be the correct process for events? bar #94(Sym) is Wait until lat4 on bar #96. On Retro bar #94 replaces Wait with T1, thus starting band A. bar #95 P2 bar #96 P2 bar #97 P1 Thus Retro affects volume events but not price form. It doesn't affect actions on Lat1-3, unless trader purchases a time machine So suggesting this as a way to understand how to handle the bar by bar volume analysis. Though other suggestions and viewpoints always welcome, adding to differentiation.
If the Lat container bar, Bar 93, is P2 then... Bar 94 Wait becomes T2P. Bar 95 T2P Bar 96 T2P Bar 96 triggers EE PP1c... so here is an example of either a mis-ID'd EE, or an EE on a fractal of no importance for trading. Or a completely wrong sequence analysis. With the EE, Bar 97 can not be another T2P since Bar 97 volume is >P2. That means its P1, or P3... either way the same down container is still has not ended, and a container can only have one set of pt1,2,3
I admit at first that post made me go,... huh? As I see it there is differentiation between internals and laterals. Hitches and Stitches are considered as internals to OB's similar to SYM, FTP, FBP are internals to XR and XB's. It's the path that price must take to get to the end. Sometimes the end gets interrupted. Once we get to Hitch, XR and XB are not possible. Even though these forms can be seen EOB, the majority of these internals are easiest to see during MADA and the real-time forming of a bar. The internals of a lateral can present all the price cases. This post clarifies OB's. OB's are not internals. Even though Jack posted as such in your link, logic and the preponderance of evidence dictates otherwise. This is the result of my own due diligence (admittedly which has the possibility of being erroneous.) No matter, the methodology is self-correcting when debriefing, that's where my confidence is sourced. Considering context is important in Jack's writings as well as a bit of mental agility. His posts stimulate thinking which is work,... most will not attempt it, let alone doing drills to expand perception.
Really?Sprout, when will you stop doing mouth and start to do the real work? It sucks a bit, don`t you think?
Good thinking. With that sequence, bar95 as a P2 short doesn't couple price geometry to the gaussians. Bar96 is closer to the price geometry of a P2 short. By having a channel annotated from bar89 pt1 and bar93 pt3, makes the case that the T1 is the continuation of a long starting at the low of bar93 and bar95 started as a BO of the RTL short. At some point this bar went from long to short sentiment. At which point the short reasserted it's Dominance by the bar sentiment short of a bar form that is long (StB). I would have considered a retro on bar96 if price hadn't closed outside the lateral. The clue is whether this particular lateral is defined as a lat4 or a lat5. Two closes are required to end the lateral. When this occurs, the first bar that closes outside the boundaries is the number of the lateral. It this case this is a lat4.