Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

[baro-san]

Definitely, this is a lot of work. If it leads you where you want to go who's to argue?

You started from what you know for sure, and worked out a lot of combinations.

With what I know now, I would've started from a different basis, from Jack's clean pages, A/D V P relation (Price Curve and Pattern), and stationary window.

I wish you good luck!

 

[WchPl]

I missed something that was in my binder.


I also went a bit deeper into the anlysis of volume cases. How ?

As was previously said, from any given volume bar, we start and wait for the next one. When this second volume bar appears, three possibilities can surge : U, E or D. That's the 3's Volume Matrix.

Then, from any evolution of the three U, E, D kinds, we can have another finite universe of possibilities surging : one more time U, E or D. That's the 3*3 = 9's Volume Matrix. And here, the universe of possibilities is already expanding itself. How and why ?

When I was studying price cases' combo's possible forms, depending on the structure of the 3rd bar creating a second price case, I noticed that the length of leg 1/2/3 can affect the form that encloses the 3 bars. I noticed then was I started studying volume with the same fashion, that when I compare the second volume bar to the prior one, then to the question "what's the form ?' could only surge 3 answers :
-> UP
-> EQUAL
-> DOWN

That's the answers to the unique question I could have when working on the 3's Volume Matrix.

When entering deeper in this and coming to the 9's Volume Matrix, the question opened up itself into more ones. What do I mean ?

After any XB, if an XR surges then one can see that the structure of bar 3 can either lead to include wholly the three bars into a long/stagnating trend or to exclude totally XR from previous XB, which takes (as I see it currently) one to WCB, in order to be able to decide.

In an analogic way, I noticed that after any pair of volume bars that either went (for the 2nd compared to the 1st one) UP, EQUAL or DOWN, then the third bar will make ask 2 questions.
-> how is that 3 bar compared to the prior one ?
-> how is that comparison compared to bar one ?

And this takes us to give two answers. As always and any volume bar, the 3rd one can either be U, E or D referred to the 2nd one.
Instantly, if the UU, EE or DD cases appear, the second question is canceled. If bar 2 did "anything" compared to the 1st one and if bar 3 does the same compared to the 2nd one, no more question, it's a continuation and then inclusion.
Quite as instantly as before, any volume case having an E in its sequence leads to the same result. The "repetition of before" is the same as "no change from before".

And this led me to circle some cases on the 9's, 27's and 81's Volume Matrix as follows.

Each circled on a case signals there will be two questions to answer to.

On the 9's Matrix, then only 2 cases are calling for two answers, the UD and DU, so when it alternates between UP and DOWN in a way or another. Logic...

And then going deeper again, I double-circled some cases on the 27's Matrix cause they doubly ask the two questions. I did not repeat yet the double circling on the 81's Matrix cause it can be deduced at all time from what is established on the 27's one.


On the 27's Matrix

For example, let's take the EDU case. From 1st to 2nd bar, equal level. On bar 3, volume decreases from bar 2, which was the same as bar 1, so on bar 3 volume decreased necessarily compared to both bar 1 and 2. Until here, no more question. Then bar 4 appears and increases compared to bar 3. New question here : even though bar 4 increases referring to bar 3, what did it do compared to the same two first bars ? Did it stop under, on or above their level ?

Another example : DEU case. From bar 1 to bar 2, volume decreases. No more question, what is next ? -> bar 3 is equal to bar 2, that was under bar 1. Necessarily, bar 3 is also under bar 1. No more question. What's next ? -> bar 4 goes UP, compared to bar 3 that was equal to bar 2 so bar 4 is above both bars 3 and 2. But is it even higher than Bar 1 ?


...............................I surprised myself as all in my mind was happening like if I was re-discovering by myself VTP, and if I was performing it.

I noticed I have made some errors on the circling of my Volume Matrixs. Never mind, I know now I have to rebuild it 100%, which means with all the possible ubications of volume bars as for their LEVEL, not only their evolution. That's gonna be long, and i'm happy about that.

For now, that was the last document I forgot to post yesterday that exposes the possible ubications of Volume bars with some examples. But I want it 100% built, not partly represented.

I also have today to begin @Sprout 's drill with RTL and BM on 1st or 2 bars.

Gonna take the time it needs, everything must be into absolute perfection, nothing more, nothing less.

@baro-san , thank you very very much for your encouragements and words. When time comes, I'll re-study Jack's clean pages you're talking about. I feel what i'm doing now is radically crucial and I want to achieve it totally before completing and beging something new. But I really take your advice in huge consideration, as I estimate your capacities a lot, as some years ago I was used to follow and read your messages when you were active on JH threads

Take all care of you guys, wish you a great day

 

[Simples]

For a boolean system, do you need Equal and what is Equal objectively here? Would just considering U and D simplify this analysis. E being one or the other. Equal for volume is actually very low chance or illiquid, though repeat/chron rev volume element is something else.

 

[WchPl]

For a boolean system, do you need Equal and what is Equal objectively here? Would just considering U and D simplify this analysis. E being one or the other. Equal for volume is actually very low chance or illiquid, though repeat/chron rev volume element is something else.

You're right, but I just wanted it to be perfectly so 100 %defined.
I don't see any difference between something built and finite at 1% and another one at 99%. I only see their commun point -> their incompleteness.

Now with that said, thank you for the advice cause it will make me gain some time

 

[Simples]

You're right, but I just wanted it to be perfectly so 100 %defined.
I don't see any difference between something built and finite at 1% and another one at 99%. I only see their commun point -> their incompleteness.

Now with that said, thank you for the advice cause it will make me gain some time

Yes, only meant in the spirit of saving time, and mind.

 

[WchPl]

Yes, only meant in the spirit of saving time, and mind.

And I seriously give you a big thank you for that, it is precious !!!

 

[WchPl]

So here is the Finite Matrix of Volume Cases possible permutations depending on the length of volume bars that, in a given sequence, go with alternation from U to D and D to U.

@Simples , your advice as for E cases is taking more and more sense now I'm not gonna skip anything though, but it's truely true that the possibility of surge of two Equals volume bars in a row is nearly always close to zero. So while the Matrixs I build will not avoid nor skip anything, the focus is almost exclusively to be on the U and D cases. Thank you !


One remark on the last part of the Matrix, the 27's one : as I could notice it, there may be some "errors" on it. What do I mean ? To explain what i mean, I may explain first, as a preambule, how I'm seeing volume forms, and what it really points out.

In analogy with price cases forms, I look at lows and highs. Highs and lows going in the same direction provide a unique trend, opposite highs and lows direction provide a conflict in trend, and equalness bewteen highs and lows provide an absence of trend.

If I apply this to volume, it turns out that :

-> on UU, EE and DD, things are obvious. The first volume bar is the operating point, and if we get U case, it's because the sum of contract bought and sold on that time duration (5mn) is greater than previous one. Vice versa for D case, and it's obvious for E.

-> On UUU, EEE, DDD cases, stil obvious.

-> On UED, UDE, EUD, EDU, DUE, and DEU, the obviousness of the facts is so high, that their is not possible doubt. Always know I know cause any (thank you one more time @Simples ) E case makes it considered like the prior one bar. So, easy so to speak.

Now, things are becoming a bit more complex :

-> The remaining cases are UUD, DDU, UDD, DUU, UDU and DUD.

I feel I have included in my matrix some extra-cases, that are not a nuance into the finite universe of possible nuances, but particular and unique scenarios inside the IN-finite universe of possibilities of surge of volume levels.

I think they are 12. And more precisely, there are 2 for each of the 6 cases I just mentionned above. Which ones and why ? All the matter is to get a reference, so an operating point, from which we start and to which we compare what unfolds next.

For UUD -> on first bar, let's say we have X contracts and this is our operating point; on second bar, we must have X + Y with Y being positive. At this point did the operating point change ? When I built the matrix, I thought yes it had changed, as it has moved from bar 1 to bar 2. But now, I feel it did not, as bewteen U and U, we must include the second one into the prior one being as volume is keeping on going in the same trend, here in an up one.
SO -> if that is true, then at bar 3 the operating point is still X, so the contracts level of bar 1. AND if that is true, then when the 4th bar appear, of course it is compared to the prior one to say U, E or D, but if what was previously stated is true, then if we get a D case, although this is determinated referring to bar 3, the operating point should still be bar 1. And therefore, there is only 3 possibilities of form surge, and not 5 as I did.
And I would have then (still for UUD) -> 4th bar is above X -> we include 4 volume bar // 4th bar is equal to bar 1 -> trend is stagnating // 4th bar is under bar 1 -> ...and here is another problem for me. I know something is changing at this moment compared to the united three previous bars, but I don"t know how to identify this between :
-> exclude bar 4 and then begin a new volume sequence/trend ?
-> or being as bar 4 is under X, then include it and TRANSFORM what was previsouly seen as long trend into SHORT trend ?

The same happens on DDU, UDD and DUU.

Anyway I have not the answer for now, I feel on UDU and DUD there is only 9 cases....and even maybe 6. Maybe the nuances I put are not FORM nuances, but PACE nuances ... Between @Sprout 's drill and this problem i'm exposing now, I feel I have some GREAT and NOT inevitably long work moments in front of me.

Working on all this has never been so authentically beautiful and euphoriant.


Wish you the best Friday and have a nice week end

 

[WchPl]

YVW,


Here’s another drill that builds on what you’ve done.

Go and get those pages photocopied so you can work through some logic. (or use tracing paper)

Go through two copies where the BM and RTL are placed on the first bar. (Green for one, Red for the other). Fan, acc trendlines Just by evaluating form. Then with copies Notice which permutations would change this result if you also included changes in bar sentiment.

Do the same if the BM and RTL are on the 2nd bar.

With the above, depending on context, will create (or not) permutations where the opposing BM and RTL are placed because you’ve identified all the possible BO bars that exist in the market’s system of operation.

This is your catalog of BM,rev’s and BO,T1’s.

You’ll Also notice something special about the OB’s and why the close of that bar (and any bar) matters.

Here is the beginning of the drill.

I have a kind of strange feeling while doing it, as I don't really get what I'm making different from the matrix I did and posted before, that follows here :

Apart from the fact that I'm adding graphically the short and long BM's and drawing the trendlines, I don't really know if I properly and clearly got you. So, is the beginning of the drill I posted above on the good road towards what you mentionned ?

As a consequence, "Notice which permutations would change this result if you also included changes in bar sentiment." is something I can't really do for now as I need to get clearly what you meant at first.

To finish, I think the 14 case (XB/OB) shows me what you said with "You’ll Also notice something special about the OB’s and why the close of that bar (and any bar) matters.".

Can't wait to keep on working


Have a nice week end !

 

[WchPl]

While waiting for some precisions, here is a simple preview of how i'd see things now, ignoring all but PC's and VC's form. I must admit I used my feeling to deduce on the OB bar that begins the short FF and this was the only moment on the chart I went beyond forms.

Nothing crucial with that chart, just to share a bit and because I can't wait to go farer in the analysis, so working on anything I can


PS : I put down Volume bars in blue cause I just can't read easily on my chart Volume levels when it's in red. I also currently wholly choose dark colors for my chart settings (background, both variables) to take care a bit of my eyes, that are suffering a lot

 

[Sprout]

Here is the beginning of the drill.

View attachment 198002

11:
1st case - is VE or if the sentiment changed on the third bar, an IBGS.
2nd case - the sentiment of the third bar determines if it gets a BM short at the top of the bar because it has XO the RTL. The fanning includes the form. BM's and BO,T1's do that too AND they also account for sentiment.

In the above two cases, if the 3rd bar sentiment is long then we are still in the Dominant traverse of let's say the BM short of the first bar. In practice, BM's long and short are not on the same bar. At one time scale it could look like this, but when going intrabar with the faster timescale you'll see the vertical orientation of the higher timescale bar transform into a horizontal orientation of tapes/traverses/channels that we have trained our minds to see.

12:
1st case - this one's tricky since the sentiment of the bar can be in congruent with the form or non congruent with the form. Depends on context. Context will detemine if sentiment is subject to the Form and Form takes precedence.
2nd case - this clears up the prior cases unclarity in a way. If the close of the third bar is in between the RTL and the BM long, then it is a BO,T1. BM short is placed at the high of the third bar because it's a XO of the RTL and the start of a short tape. How this relates to the larger context that is developing is determined by Dom-nonDom-Dom of the 'pattern'
3rd case - if the third bar's close is below the BM long, then it's price went through BO,T1 on it's way to BM,rev. I log both. If the close is in the zone between the RTL and the BM long, then only a BO,T1

13:
1st case - Jack doesn't measure the third bar unless it's increasing volume (Use Larger)(UL) on log. I do if the close XO the RTL regardless of volume.
2nd case - It would be accelerating if we observed a surge of increasing volume.

14:
OB's - aren't they wonderful? The prior context matters, the sentiment matters. They are turning points. Sometimes of tapes, other times at traverses, and yet at other times at channels. If the sentiment XO a previously defined RTL on increasing volume then process like an OB. Since as it XO a RTL then 12, 13 of the above come into play and the FS is on the top line of the row division in the log. BM's are places appropriately.

15 & 16: Internals, wait unless FS or increasing volume to measure. As with all of the above, the close is important and determines context.

18 &19: Also internals, wait is logged unless FS or increasing volume, then measure. 18 is a special case in that it's a wait but not part of a lateral even if it's at the beginning of one.


edit: the purpose of the drill is to observe the utility of well placed BM,'s and RTL's and observe when Form (price case) and Sentiment (Bar) is congruent to the existing context or if the overall sentiment is cycling though the 'patten.' When the FS's are activated, placing the BM's and RTL's for the new orientation starts clearing lot's of things up. If things are still unclear (there are edges where this happens), 'squish' the current bar into the one before to make a 'synthetic' single bar in your mind's eye. This then can reinforce or refute the prior context and be the tip on the scale to make it 'more like this' and 'less like that.' This is an instance where fuzzy logic is useful and makes a difference.

When observing bar sentiment, then sometimes a new BM is place other times not, hence the suggestion of tracing paper/copies so that you can keep the differentiation clear and using what you've done so far as a 'master copy'



Btw, you are doing great! Your tone and demeanor has shifted and your thinking is activated to getting your own answers. Well Done!

As you are experiencing, there is a clarity that arises from doing the work. It is associated strongly to a positive emotion. You're well on your way, and the strong foundation that you have/currently building is inexpressible to others whom have not undergone a similar effort.

As you progress to combining logs with your annotations, the market will come into crystal clarity. All by building your spectrum of differentiation through thinking!


I'm not sure about you, and for me, it required walks in the woods, marking up printed threads in coffeeshops and lot's of power naps.


Keep up the good work!



View attachment 198003



I have a kind of strange feeling while doing it, as I don't really get what I'm making different from the matrix I did and posted before, that follows here :

View attachment 198000

View attachment 198001


Apart from the fact that I'm adding graphically the short and long BM's and drawing the trendlines, I don't really know if I properly and clearly got you. So, is the beginning of the drill I posted above on the good road towards what you mentionned ?

As a consequence, "Notice which permutations would change this result if you also included changes in bar sentiment." is something I can't really do for now as I need to get clearly what you meant at first.

To finish, I think the 14 case (XB/OB) shows me what you said with "You’ll Also notice something special about the OB’s and why the close of that bar (and any bar) matters.".

Can't wait to keep on working


Have a nice week end !

Comments within quoted text...

btw, I've been taking the deep dive into the crypto sphere lately so I'm not checking in here as often as I used to be. I'm still around and a little tardy with my comments.