If it matters, I concur regarding B-Band EE usage, BUT... B-band activates with T2P. VTP relies on T1 for furthering the sequence to T2F. Based on that reliance, Ab EE is potentially appropriate. Aa EE includes T2P as a requirement, in addition to a UL -OR- Wait. PP1c and PP6a definitions are clearly associated with T2P's and F's. Also, back to B-band EE's... Jacks B-band explanation has been posted several times. Plus once more... Please note: Ba is common and Bc is not seen. Something else to note and consider is that the above Ba description is different than the additional requirements on the B through K Bands EE page. From above text... Ba is found when P2 is greater than P1 or an inside bar has a larger volume than the outside bar AND the volume is between P2 and T2P. From B-K page (typed in this post by me)... Ba ... can be in UL int OR P2 > P1 OR P1 > P2 One more thing... if using a B-band EE, the lower limit is T2P. VTP requires, vis-a-vis "kills" both T2P and T2F, if < T1 Regardless of the label we assign, the difference is the placement of associated P1. Either on EE bar itself -or- the on the next measurable.
I woke up and I was thinking about bands and turn types etc. (seems to occupy my mind a lot). If I apply RDBMS with SCT was thinking the Trend type would be the container, turn type is the trading fractal (C turn to C turn or ftt to ftt trading), EE is the sub-fractal (PP's and A-bands), B-bands and onward are sub-sub-fractals and so on. As long as volume doesn't break-out of the A-band or activate FS we seem to have more bands which I feel like explains remaining in a container. Also, as I was sifting through some charts by Jack, I realized he had Fd LVBO even though there were several bars retracing after P2. This had me thinking about matching gaussians and containers with RDBMS. It seems to make sense since P1 to P2 is the x2x gaussian and x2y retrace can happen after P2. I've been using BO,T1 once RTL gets crossed even after P2 but it would appear I had this part wrong. I think this is what tiddlywinks tried to help me see but I'm not 100% positive lol. However, as I view the charts and annotate it looks more accurate than before by applying this thought so far.
"Jacks" charts may be those of a students. We will never know, but it does explain the all over the place nature, and style of notations. Very few examples of B-band (valid or not) and beyond btw. Not in that order, but yes!! The bar-by-bar works insanely well for container turns. Also helps a bit to reduce fractal jumping. Recognizing your trading container is the hardest part... hint: the bar by bar sequence you are annotating are only segments, not your trading container point1,2,3 etc. Stay in the lane of your trading container and all is good!! Gaussians can come later or simultaneous. That's a lot to debrief or not get confused by in rt... crawl, stand, walk, run.
Yes, you pointing out with precision the band activations illustrating to me my habit of collapsing the secondary band fractal and taking measurement intrabar. This habit arose out of my interaction of FS’s and OB’s while not fully implementing turns and trend types per the Modrian. Thanks again! Speaking of which, here’s a post on starting out anywhere to ID bars and turns.
I just read this earlier today: Price Suppression has to be done to prevent erroneous sequences. In the Cash Cow where we looked at trading with inidcators, we had to be sure that no indicator signals were used as a consequence of non statistically significant indicator information. So in logic for beginner level I added the suppression ciruitry. ... Here in the SCT price is used for giving permission to do volume testing. this means two AI things: 1. Price creates the volume measure blackout periods. 2. Price is NOT needed to deal with the band OOE's. bands only regulate the stear and focus aspect of really cutting out EE's that are not statistically significant at any given time. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/are-all-price-patterns-the-same-examples.266792/page-26 So I believe it may be helpful to look at price suppression and volume bands as logical filters for M and A.
"Price creates the volume measure blackout periods." Doesn't it kind of go against the capital concept of Volume being the independent variable, and Price being the dependent?
It’s a fundamental part of the VTP. Price case gives permission or not to measure volume. Volume measurements determine the progression of trend. Knowing a volume sequence at n-1 determines the possible turns arriving at n. Seeing the volume sequence developing at n is what gives anticipation to continue or change,... and take timely action - like clockwork.
In order to properly use the independent variable in bar-bar analysis, one need to make sure the bars are statistically significant. DV Internals are regarded as insignificant for practical purposes of not having to deal with faster fractals that are not really measurable from the data anyway. Also, only translating bars really make money, which is why Laterals got invented as well. Price being dependent on volume is fact: Without transactions, there are no measurable changes to price. What we cannot measure, we cannot practically use.
Upon further reflection there is a gap here in the logic. Perhaps we can tease it out more. Where this is most evident is in the assignment of EE - Ab. This EE appears quite frequently after P2 on the next bar. A band EE's are considered as a set of 4 bar combinations. The next bar is a T2P < T1 which as defined yields Ab. In all the charts I've reviewed, there is not a T2P logged above T1 prior to Ab being assigned. Perhaps I'm missing some. Let's say T2P is assigned and not an Ab. The next bar is either another T2P or T2F or wait. The T2P can be a BO such as defined by Bc (P2<P1) or Ba (P2>P1) or a Band pass as another T2P on the way to PP1c. Wait is wait. The T2F is a T2F. As @tiddlywinks has pointed out, the F band needs a T2F to activate and has presented the idea of T2F as a bar that is identified prior to C band activating. C band is required to activate prior to F band. As such then if the bar forming the first T2F in the sequence is below T1, there would be two ways of looking at that. The first is that it is an Fd (T2F < T1) which is how I have been interpreting it, however that would not follow the logic tiddlywinks presented above for T2F itself has to present in the sequence as a pre-req for C band. C band is a pre-req for F band. The other way to look at that is looking for another LVBO below T1. That gives us Ab for H band isn't activate until F band activates. This is all well and good, except for two things: 1) There is not a lot of examples of Ab with a T2P prior (not on same bar as Ab) and 2) ID'ing Ab on the very bar of a forming T2P after P2 works in countless sequences. So the question remains, what is the correct ID of the next bar after T2P is logged that is < T1? I've been operating at the assumption that all F band paths are on the same bar, perhaps this is not the case and like A band, there is at least one other context to consider. The other possibility is that H band "is outside F band" is interpreted in a different dimension than the idea of H band only coming into being after F band activates.
I'm thinking... Once we have T2P locked in, whatever EE comes next won't be P1 immediately. So, if we have T2P then a LVBO <T1 why not just name it Bb or whatever and assign the next bar P1 anyhow? Only FS and A-band EE are assigned P1 asap right? It would make sense regardless of whether we name it Fd or something else.