there is a couple of things I also need to define and define clearly :
1- on BM
I'm beginning the log and chart once again and :
- on bar 4, degap is required. Moving up of one tick bar 4, there is no BM anymore; But it absolutely describes a BMrev on the non-degapped chart. So, is the BMrev true or not here ? I'll say yes it is, refine my chart and log with that baseline and see what happens, if it makes sense or not along logging.
2 - on Degap
as for degapping, if I consider (and there is to) bar 4 is to be degapped, then it moves up of a tick. Then comes bar 5 which does not require degap compared to absolute bar 4, but does need it compared to relative bar 4 (after bar 4 degapped). What I wonder now is :
After IDing Bar 4 and 5 price case relative to the degapped position of bar 4, is there to compare bar 6 to the adapted position of Bar 5 compared to the relative degapped position of bar 4,, and so on until there is a given bar that makes it all adjusted and no more adaptation to relative degapped position of bars is needed. If there is to do that, which sounds logic to me right now, it would be very helpful to annotate on the log in a way or another the number of ticks there is in gap at each and every moment.
Example
First way of seeing the cascading effect of degap :
Bar 2 creates absolutely XB andis to be degapped, 1 tick-gap to degap. We move bar 2 down of 1 tick, we relatively have XB still.
Bar 3 is also describing XB absolutely, and is to be degapped too compared to bar 2, 1 tick to degap. We push bar 3 down of 1 tick, we relatively still have XB.
Bar 4 absolutely is OB, and is not to be degapped compared to bar 3 as their respective Open and Close are matching. We can measure bar 4.
Second way (which is the one I'm gonna use now xause it fits better with how I understand the cascading effect of degap, it sounds more logic to me currently)
Bar 2 creates absolutely XB andis to be degapped, 1 tick-gap to degap. We move bar 2 down of 1 tick, we relatively have XB still.
Bar 3 is also describing XB absolutely, and is to be degapped too compared to bar 2, and here begins the difference :
- compared to the absolute position of bar 2, bar 3 is to be 1-tick degapped, and relatively to bar 2 degapped itself, we have 2 ticks to degap bar 3 of.
We push bar 3 down of 2 ticks, we relatively still have XB.
Bar 4 absolutely creates OB so we can measure volume. BUT -> relatively compared to relative position of bar 3 which was degapped from bar 2 which was degapped from bar 1, we now have both a StB price case which unables to measure volume unless it increases AND we need to degap bar 4 from bar 3 cause the relative position of bar 3 resulting from the 2 prior degapping makes the open of bar 4 and the close of bar 3 relatively not matching, whereas they were matching absolutely.
In the second case, I would see on bar 4 a relative StB, would annotate this in the log and not measure volume unless it's increasing compared to prior bar.
and THEN, on the next bar, if the open of bar 6 matches with the absolute position of bar 5 I would stop degapping, if not I would keep on degapping.
Let's refine with the second way and see
3 - on acceleration PP!s
What I wonder about this is when to declare there is acceleration or not. It looks when looking a chart, more complex and subtle than it seemed at first sight.
PP!s dealing with acceleration concern 3 bars. How to say there is acceleration bewteen 3 steps ? When it goes faster between the last 2 points than between the first two ones.
So :
- If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 11K and the third P1 is at 13K, is there acceleration ?
If yes, then the parameters present here and that led to see an acceleration/ an absence of non acceleration are : volume is INC two times + volume is showing CONTINUATION + the gap between bar 2 and bar 3 is bigger than the one between bar 1 and bar 2.
So three parameters : orientation of volume + volume move + bigger gap in the end than at beginning. What is/are the parameter(s) that lead here to say there is acceleration ? Let's go forward.
- If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 9K and third P1 is at 7K, what are the nature of the parameters :
volume oritentation : short two times
volume move : continuation short
second gap compared to first one : bigger
If there is acceleration here, then it means we must at least have both continuation AND bigger 2nd gap on volume, no matter of the orientation of volume.
- If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 9K (or 11K) and third P1 is at 11K (or 9K), is there acceleration ?
If yes, then it means the only parameter that leads to see an acceleration is the 2nd gap compared to prior one, no matter if volume shows change from INC to DEC and vice versa.
For the refinement I'm doing now, I'll choose to see what happens if I consider there is acceleration by comparing only the second gap compared to the first 1, ignoring the volume the nature of each volume move between the three bars and the continuity/change of it.
One last thing about this : some PPs concerning acceleration or not, deal with the "you have x this in a row/one after another". What I wonder is : what if a WAIT happens between these "x this". Example : bar 1 is P2, bar 2 is WAIT, bar 3 is P2, bar 4 is P2. They accelerate. IS there PP1a ?
If yes, then the WAIT does not affect the "in the row" aspect of ID'd P2s. For now, I will consider the "WAIT" is an event like any other one and brokes the sequence. So in the example I used, I'd say there is no PP1a.
1- on BM
I'm beginning the log and chart once again and :
- on bar 4, degap is required. Moving up of one tick bar 4, there is no BM anymore; But it absolutely describes a BMrev on the non-degapped chart. So, is the BMrev true or not here ? I'll say yes it is, refine my chart and log with that baseline and see what happens, if it makes sense or not along logging.
2 - on Degap
as for degapping, if I consider (and there is to) bar 4 is to be degapped, then it moves up of a tick. Then comes bar 5 which does not require degap compared to absolute bar 4, but does need it compared to relative bar 4 (after bar 4 degapped). What I wonder now is :
After IDing Bar 4 and 5 price case relative to the degapped position of bar 4, is there to compare bar 6 to the adapted position of Bar 5 compared to the relative degapped position of bar 4,, and so on until there is a given bar that makes it all adjusted and no more adaptation to relative degapped position of bars is needed. If there is to do that, which sounds logic to me right now, it would be very helpful to annotate on the log in a way or another the number of ticks there is in gap at each and every moment.
Example
First way of seeing the cascading effect of degap :
Bar 2 creates absolutely XB andis to be degapped, 1 tick-gap to degap. We move bar 2 down of 1 tick, we relatively have XB still.
Bar 3 is also describing XB absolutely, and is to be degapped too compared to bar 2, 1 tick to degap. We push bar 3 down of 1 tick, we relatively still have XB.
Bar 4 absolutely is OB, and is not to be degapped compared to bar 3 as their respective Open and Close are matching. We can measure bar 4.
Second way (which is the one I'm gonna use now xause it fits better with how I understand the cascading effect of degap, it sounds more logic to me currently)
Bar 2 creates absolutely XB andis to be degapped, 1 tick-gap to degap. We move bar 2 down of 1 tick, we relatively have XB still.
Bar 3 is also describing XB absolutely, and is to be degapped too compared to bar 2, and here begins the difference :
- compared to the absolute position of bar 2, bar 3 is to be 1-tick degapped, and relatively to bar 2 degapped itself, we have 2 ticks to degap bar 3 of.
We push bar 3 down of 2 ticks, we relatively still have XB.
Bar 4 absolutely creates OB so we can measure volume. BUT -> relatively compared to relative position of bar 3 which was degapped from bar 2 which was degapped from bar 1, we now have both a StB price case which unables to measure volume unless it increases AND we need to degap bar 4 from bar 3 cause the relative position of bar 3 resulting from the 2 prior degapping makes the open of bar 4 and the close of bar 3 relatively not matching, whereas they were matching absolutely.
In the second case, I would see on bar 4 a relative StB, would annotate this in the log and not measure volume unless it's increasing compared to prior bar.
and THEN, on the next bar, if the open of bar 6 matches with the absolute position of bar 5 I would stop degapping, if not I would keep on degapping.
Let's refine with the second way and see
3 - on acceleration PP!s
What I wonder about this is when to declare there is acceleration or not. It looks when looking a chart, more complex and subtle than it seemed at first sight.
PP!s dealing with acceleration concern 3 bars. How to say there is acceleration bewteen 3 steps ? When it goes faster between the last 2 points than between the first two ones.
So :
- If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 11K and the third P1 is at 13K, is there acceleration ?
If yes, then the parameters present here and that led to see an acceleration/ an absence of non acceleration are : volume is INC two times + volume is showing CONTINUATION + the gap between bar 2 and bar 3 is bigger than the one between bar 1 and bar 2.
So three parameters : orientation of volume + volume move + bigger gap in the end than at beginning. What is/are the parameter(s) that lead here to say there is acceleration ? Let's go forward.
- If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 9K and third P1 is at 7K, what are the nature of the parameters :
volume oritentation : short two times
volume move : continuation short
second gap compared to first one : bigger
If there is acceleration here, then it means we must at least have both continuation AND bigger 2nd gap on volume, no matter of the orientation of volume.
- If the first P1 is at 10K, second P1 is at 9K (or 11K) and third P1 is at 11K (or 9K), is there acceleration ?
If yes, then it means the only parameter that leads to see an acceleration is the 2nd gap compared to prior one, no matter if volume shows change from INC to DEC and vice versa.
For the refinement I'm doing now, I'll choose to see what happens if I consider there is acceleration by comparing only the second gap compared to the first 1, ignoring the volume the nature of each volume move between the three bars and the continuity/change of it.
One last thing about this : some PPs concerning acceleration or not, deal with the "you have x this in a row/one after another". What I wonder is : what if a WAIT happens between these "x this". Example : bar 1 is P2, bar 2 is WAIT, bar 3 is P2, bar 4 is P2. They accelerate. IS there PP1a ?
If yes, then the WAIT does not affect the "in the row" aspect of ID'd P2s. For now, I will consider the "WAIT" is an event like any other one and brokes the sequence. So in the example I used, I'd say there is no PP1a.
