Hmm... I guess that would make PP1b (from sheet) now that I think about it. P1-T1-T1-Int-T1-P2 still has Int-T1-P2 sequence in it.
3 consecutive T1's. No internals. No acceleration or deceleration testing. = PP6 T1-T1-W-T1 As an EE sequence, as being discussed, it would be a nothing burger. The wait kills PP6, and for PP2, the 3-piece consecutive sequence is required to be T1-T1-P2 (without boundary validation), which does not appear from any starting point in this example. The 4th piece, T1, negates an EE Ae-1 which does allow internals, but would require an HVBO as piece 4, in this example.
The thought is good. Caveat is: Any reintepretation, however tiny, could spell some additional trouble/confusion vs the original system, whatever and however it was originally implemented. Many places Jack claim the rules to be precise/exact, so any deviations could lead a little astray. Which is why we hunt down old posts
Ironically after you pointed out F-band, upon debriefing, this is the way I used to do it. The overall structure you’ve defined is correct AND doing MADA has one check for EE prior to assigning a bar event. In a recent prior post is the reference link. Btw, not having BO,T1 nor BM, rev will provide limited usefulness in showing continuity of context. If you think about the Haskell equations for each with a hand drawn pic, you might find they are not that difficult to program. If I may, precluding the above, if you set up a hot key so that the program starts counting where you defined a P1 bar, (with the ability to have multiple streams of P1 assignments feeding different logs) that would provide a bridge to discern which P1 placement was the correct one. We’re using curve fitting in a different and more advantageous context than CW. Hth
SierraChart, while it is a great platform, and Im not complaining, is not OOP oriented. The underlying programming language however is C/C++ which basically means most anything can be accomplished. Since none (or very few) of the built-in tools expose an OOP(like) interface, objects such as a sloped lines have to be re-invented, built from scratch, including all construction, maintenance, tracking, and destruction needs, while maintaining complete compatibility with the confines and features of the platform. IOW... it's a PITA (pain. in. the. ass.) and imo, for such an "object" and it's purpose, not worth the time and effort!! That said, I have programmed the ability to assign P1 (reset/restart sequencing) via a right click option on any bar, removing existing labels to the right, when/if/as appropriate.
Good work. If you break the problem down and consider two types of BO,T1’s; one that occurs early in trend and the other that occurs after several bars to end a trend, then the problem you’ve defined becomes only applicable to a smaller set of endings.
Here is a PP1c (PP1b on the sheet) that was picked up on NQ pre-market. INT-T1-P2 As we know, there is no documentation (known at this time) other than on the sheet. A careful look shows an upper limit of NONE, and a lower limit of P1. Think this through.... an INT, unless it's UL, would always be lower than P1. A T1 is always lower than P1. So that leaves the P2... I THINK P2 is where the lower limit gets applied, thereby INT-T1-P2 where P2 > P1. This is the way I'm working with it for the time being. Similar is PP1d... INT-P1-P1, but I havent worked this one through fully... INT-P1-P1 could lead to PP1 (which allows INT as well), so something must differentiate. Have a nice weekend all.
Ah a break out of A band on P2 bar here as well. I almost didn't notice the lower limit of P1 here. That makes sense. It always seems like we are looking for 3-4 bars with a breakout of A bands (higher or lower) for EE of each segment. Otherwise, looking for volume to steady into the middle of band creating more bands for continuation on smaller fractals. Along with use of turn types we get to note multiple fractals through this method. At least that's how I'm seeing it.
I am definitely late to this party, but I have a few questions about the PP Sheet. a) What is an INT as it relates to PP1b and PP1d? Your Q's are all ontological of the special sense. Int (ernals) cause bars to be unnamed in the usual volume test porcedure manner. Thereforethese "spaces" between names help in trend naming differentiation. INT acts as a qualifier. b) What does the INT "Kills" column mean and is it the same definition of INT that is found with regard to PP1b and PP1d? I use kill to mean "make not possible".It is if together as a word (with a meaning" becomes to gether and the space changes the letter group to something with another meaning. PP1b on sheet and in posted text above is INT --> T1 --> P2. That leaves PP1c to be 3 T2P's. Since PP1c is referenced in Modrian table Set A Green Panel, swapping the two could add some noise and confusion. Best to follow sheets firstly. Jack has stated formulas and info there are accurate. Good catch on Upper Limit: NONE! You can find multiple EEs per bar. They aren't exclusive to one another.