The corresponding volume bars have that color. Look it up!
Last edited:
Making JH' SCT and all his material alive
- Thread starter WchPl
- Start date
You’re on the path. You are applying yourself in a methodical manner. Your unconscious is processing and giving you the next questions to debrief. You are getting your answers from the market.
The feelings that you feel are the guide.
Clarity, Truth and Beauty are the way.
Keep going and when ready start logging bar-by-bar.
From where you are, that’s the activity that brings it all together.
Cheers!
ps mistakes are ok, logging is self-correcting, make a mess,...
Those images are the bar formation’s path of least resistance.
There is also it’s opposite - the path of greater volatility.
Profitable trading is but a milestone. This method is about training to take the market’s full offer.
The two are entirely different domains.
Here is the first third of the Master Copy Matrix.
View attachment 198315
View attachment 198316
View attachment 198317
I stopped it at sequence 3. and so, cause I saw new things appeared.
First of all, and that's all the matter, in fact, I noticed that from the beginning, I arbitrary affected sentiments to the first two price bars, got the form of it, and then added the 3rd bar, to continue the drill you told me about @Sprout . When I began the sequence 3. so by 31 case I said to myself : "well, the third bar is either gonna form a LAT form, or a kind of "long BO". Then inside the LAT form and the BO form, the trend can either FAN or ACC, and in FAN case, the close of the third bar depending on its sent, can either be under prior RTL/ between RTL and 1st bar's high/ above 1st bar high.".
From there, some cases appeared as seen on the image. And from there, surged in my mind : "but what about the sent and then the open and close of bars 1 and 2 ?".
Then I drew this :
View attachment 198319
That is an example of a continous short sentiment on a continous long form (XB). If we consider one little square on my sheet as the most little tick the bar can vary of, the we can see that bar 1 is 6 ticks in volatility, and so are the next 4. And then let's fix each bar will have 1 tick between its Open and Close.
Then if we want to see a continous short sentiment along the next bars while conserving an XB form, then the number of bars on which we'll be able to observe that is determined by...the number of ticks between bar 1's high and the low of the bar where this context will become impossible on. The bar where it becomes impossible to continue to see short sent on XBs, is the third bar after the first one. That's because there were 3 ticks in volatility between bar 1 and bar 4. After bar 3, it's impossible to see short sent and XB on the third bar, only a DOJI or then we will either have StB/OB formed by bar3+bar4. So, the repetition of XB with short sent is broken.
Why did I do that, and what does it help me for ?
-> From there, some cases appeared as seen on the image. And from there, surged in my mind : "but what about the sent and then the open and close of bars 1 and 2 ?".
It turns out that in function of, in my matrix, which sent was affected to the first two bars and where both Open/Close were affected on each bar, the third bar sees its "possible surge in form and nuances in ubication of O/C compared to prior RTL" considerably reduced or even sometimes cancelled.
So, @Sprout , the question is : do you think, as I do a bit now, that I should begin again my matrix affecting all the sentiment permutations to not only the 3rd bar, but also to the first two ones ?
It would be then (L for long, S for short) that for any price case combo : LLL/ LLS/LSL/LSS/SSS/SSL/SLS/SLL.
I understand the matter of that drill is to establish the possible ubications of O/C of the third bar compared to the prior RTL. But once this is established, there are also nuances that can appear. And this fact, came into my perception with the "continous short sent on a continous long form".
As I was on the 31 case, I was establishing the possible forms it could have. The result is that it can either create a Lat, or a "long BO". Once this established, this following example made what I said previously as for O/C and sents of the first two bars jump at me :
View attachment 198320
That is not an exhaustive comment, but on the first case of the page (so long sent on 3rd bar with close below the two prior RTLs) we can clearly see that the whole sent of the three bars is long. And by looking a bit closer and precisely, we can see it by noticing ....that the open of bar 1 is below bar 3's close. Meanwhile, the form clearly shows a short trend. This is what led me to the "continous short sent on a continous long form".
So what came to my mind is that, the open and close of bar 1 and 2 matter as much as the third bar's.
So, to reformulate my question : am I seeing to far beyond where I am at the moment ?
To synthetize, when form says something and the sentiment contradicts it, the context will make us decide if either the form/the sent takes precedence....and this reminds me your last comments
By the way, here are the quoting I wanted to use to ubicate the infos of your last post, that I see fuzzy the most.
congruent with the form -> which form are you precisely talking about ? the most actual, so XR or the prior one so XB ? As I see things, logically the congruent sentiment with an XB form is Long, and the congruent sent with an XR form is short; but this is maybe where I start bad.
We're in the 13 = XB/SYM case. When I said there there can be "ACC", as always from the beginning on the stuff I'm currently doing, I was talking about the form, the vector, the degree of inclination of the trendline. I don't get how volume can validate or invalidate the fact that a trendline made up by two highs/lows of 2 price bars is more or less sloped ? I may be missing what you say. Can you clarify please ?
Several months ago you told me "you're a bit of perfectionnist". You were right. When you sey here " if the sentiment XO a [...] RTL". Are you talking a bout one of the legs of the bar ? or the close ? I mean, the sent is, for me, the nature of the gap between O/C, so either the unique leg of the bar, or leg 2. Once again, could you clarify please with a bit more of precision as for the term ?
NB : I also noticed, beyond and in addition to the ubication of O/C of bars 1 and 2 in my master copy matrix of 3 bars in a row, that the number of legs also counts and says a LOT. It makes some "next steps" possible or not in function of how it began. As always, future precedes the present and the past.
It took me a nice while to realize I had not understood what you meant here. Sometimes, I feel stupid... I get you now, and am currently building that master copy that I'll photocop.
Hope you're doing well, wish you the best Aha's in your new sphere
I think you could trust yourself more, be kinder to yourself and acknowledge your due diligence and perseverance as extraordinary.
I tmakes sense and helps, yes, thank you very much. Although i'm confused with your gaussians, the text you wrote about Lats is providing some susbtance. Thank you for that
Holly YES you can !
Ok
Make sure you incorporate looking at faraway objects at regular intervals. Being in the forest helps. Be kind to your eyes!
ok got you, thank youThe corresponding volume bars have that color. Look it up!
My interpretation of what you talk about.
, Thank you. And so must be yours, without a doubt.Thanks for the advice, got you
In this resides something crucial apparently :
trough -> increasing -> peak -> trough.
No mention of decreasing. Why so ? Why not better : increasing-> peak-> decreasing -> trough and so on ?
Any comment would be appreciated here.
trough -> increasing -> peak -> trough.
No mention of decreasing. Why so ? Why not better : increasing-> peak-> decreasing -> trough and so on ?
Any comment would be appreciated here.
4 part loop repeating: T >> IV >> P >> T
RDBMS: First P1 is always assigned, so might be NOT IV.
Update: It isn't part of drill 4, just mentioned as an overall principle. To get to T, you'd need DV.
Last edited:
Working today on all this, and reready fully the Journal in question. I had already read it a several times in the last 4 years, and the first time I read it was the very first thing I read about JH universe.
A long way has been browsed since that first moment. And it's very exciting to note this, and really frustrating at the same time to see all that journey since my first reading of this Journal is not providing me any kind of answer/help to understand that same Journal.
Working through the Pattern, the OOE, VTP, EE, Turns and Trends Type.
All this is really overwhelming, especially when entering the "tables".
The most difficult resides in the fact that in this Journal, at the beginning JH described things step by step, clearly and completely, and suddenly, stops explaining in the same vein the following things that are deduced and to be used, from/after the prior ones.
[/QUOTE]
That's what make the thing inaccessible to the greedy ones, and both excitingly hard and hardly exciting to those who feel the beautiful completeness of the system. All the matter is to go beyond what is said, therefore this is reaching what is not to be said be to be done by and for oneself.
In the past, I saw this attitude kind of cruel;
Now, although it's a concrete pain and suffering day by day (especially for those like me dedicating their whole life to the method and sacrifying 90% of their existence to get it), I just see it as necessary. Once all the pieces have been presented, it's up to one to explore them and merge them all together. The view will be fantastic. Thank you @Sprout for being so present on this journey; some week s ago you said I was SO CLOSE to gather everything and make all the hard work worth it. It's only now I see you were right.
Thank you Jack.