I've actually wondered about those bookmarks. My thoughts initially were that we take profit on all EE's. On P1's (A-bands and FS) we reverse immediately. Other EE's we wait for the next bar to determine where it closes relative to BM (it will be P1 even if we have BM reverse anyway) and enter. Another thought was, once the segment ends, change will come in either trend direction and/or volatility so we get a new RTL in one form or another. Hmm... does that mean for every segment, we can anticipate the range close to the tick? Learning this for me is a constant fluctuation between eureka and headaches. Almost feel biploar.
Comments within quoted text. Make the index cards and print the Essence flowchart. Play it like a board game as you review Jack's charts where he has trade actions articulated. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/sctlearning-from-scratch.282221/page-14#post-3964794
Yes, WCB and WMCN are entwined in the now. Sometimes with OB's, dropping into the faster timescale to "see inside" the OB provides some clarity. Just as rising up into the slower timeframe provides greater clarity on trend turning points.
Your answer is a short 20 days of logging away. The questions that are arising is a demonstration that your subconscious is working, processing and that REAL learning is occurring. Trading is building. There is a caveat - make complete, accurate logs and post.
@Sprout : In response to volume being the determinant of the type/nature of an OB versus the ID'd sequence being the determinant of type/nature of an OB... you said regarding volume... There is no doubt a price bar can (or won't) morph into a different final eob characterization. If morphed, explanation is merely a recital of logic of the morphing "steps". The fact is, looking at a hindsight chart there is no "when" associated. You seem fixated on intrabar morphing. The example being discussed, all that is "known" is that between bar start(open) and bar end(close) morphing steps occurred, period. Without "knowing" the state of both independent and dependent variables AT THE MOMENT, this OB example might have been a SYM until, say, 90% of the way to eob. We "don't know." If the example is a 5-min bar, 90% is 270 seconds of 300. Now if you want to think you could do proper MADA, and make multiple (profitable?) trades based on intrabar movement, I say you need to rethink that idea. More important, if/when both variables are known, what indicates changing the OB type/nature from a T1/P2 to being P2/T2P? In your analysis, timing is beyond everything, and signals/triggers are perceptible for as long as literally, you do not blink. Being tradable other than automated would be somewhat off topic with that foundation. In the T1/P2 case there is no EE. The OB is ID'd P2. Next measurable becomes P2, T2P, or P1. In a P2/TP2 case there is an EE. The OB is marked PP5. Next measurable becomes P1, mandated. I want to point out an obvious: T1/P2 progresses an existing sequence. P2/T2P ends an existing sequence... Welcome to the overlap zone on a segment scale. A trend, a segment of price movement, an existing sequence HAS ended, a new sequence, a new segment IS about to begin. So is it the ID'd sequence, or the volume that determines the type/nature of an OB? Intrabar morphing is merely a logical progression. OB is a lock-in, possible through all morphing logic paths at ANY TIME during bar formation. While working intrabar, be sure to include the possibility of a one-bar complete sequence(good luck with that). IMO, the intrabar analysis as you are doing, is straying from the relational database, and is creating a false sense of being trade-able for profit. You have forgotten at least one critical question... where are you (within the next bigger container)? The sequence is the sequence until/unless it isn't.
I confess having only a vague understanding of this Hershey approach, and not having an interest in deepening it, but I browse from time to time these two threads that keep Jack's memory alive. So, sorry to briefly interject an idea into this OB discussion. What if you consider the OB on the same level with the "internals", a "wait", and don't force it in any direction?
OB always has permission to measure volume, no matter the lock-in path taken or the speed at which it formed.
This is a valid observation which Jack himself has often quoted ~"2 of the 10 price cases permit measurement." To avoid confusion, I believe he said it in a beginner context. Later as folks were ready to differentiate OB's then the 'default' state was introduced to 'change' state which included permission to measure.