20th and final Session coming soon
Road to expert drill - 20th Session of MADA on 09/18/19 - 25 EE's IDd
It has been a nice little trip to do those 20 sessions.
The major differences between when I began with session 1 are now are :
- the quickness at which I can ID a scenario
- the quickness at which I can clear up a doubt
- the time necessary to do a complete MADA session. 3 months ago or so, I needed around 5 hours to complete a log. Without its debrief. Nowadays, a debrief takes me between 20min an one hour and some (depending on the cascdading effects' extent) and a log takes me, including a break at middle of page 3 for 30min, 2hours and some.
- the pleasure taken while doing the exercise
I may be forgetting some things, but here are most likely the most important ones. They are huge.
MADA on 09/18/19
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
NB : in this session, I've stuck my Lats boundaries once established as previously said. It brought some doubts when IDing some PCs into the Lat. Basically, once in a Lat, the boundaries define the next PC's coming up. If boundaries are fixed, then the refering bar into which all subsequent are squished until either StR, StB, XB, XR or OB surges, is also fixed.
It brought this question to my mind : if choosing to fix Lats boundaries and not letting them to be affected by degap, how to ID ? By its real case after degap OR by considering its appearance on the chart so then compared to Lat1 ? I have not cleared this up totally yet, although in my log I've IDd the PC as its relative position to degap. I need to think about it.
Indirectly, this little opaque zone sent me somwhere else to another wondering : Up to now, in all the logs I've made since the 1th Session almost three weeks ago, I've IDd, sometimes, Lats into Lats. This could only surge, for me, when at least one bar had BO'd the Lat's boundaries and create XB, XR, OB etc.
BUT, after further reflexion when the following scenario came up :
At Lat 9 : since Lat 6, we've had a bar not squished into Lat1. Ok. Lat 9 then, is XR. And the two subsequent bars are in its shadow. Each time, in the previous 19 sessions, this happened, I used to draw and ID a new Lat.
BUT now, I see it differently : this could happen only if those subsequent bars were not measurable. Are they in the case of Lat 9-Lat10-Lat11 ? They are measurable cause still into a Lat. So I did not consider Lat 9-10 and 11 were forming a new Lat.
I think this is correct as it's following the rule of Lat.
And then I went deeper into thinking : The rule says to have a Lat, the second and third bars must not be measurable. In the case of a Lat that has gone farer than Lat4 in the shadow of Lat1, we measure prior bars that were not measured. Ok, they are then measurED. MeasurED. But are they measurABLE ? Hmmm.. Maybe I'm making it more complex than it is. That's what I thought and still think. There could be a tricky thing to DD as for a measurED bar can be NOT measurABLE. Ok, I think it's too much and wrong.
Thus : for me, its does follow logic, rules and laws not to see a Lat3 on Lat 11.
Just wanted to share the thought.
From now, I'm probably gonna take 1, 2 or 3 days of break, which is what (2 days) I have granted myself in 19 days of work in a row.
I'll let all this rest a bit, 48 or 72hours, and will be back on the road for next steps.
Happy and great week end to all !
