Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

[WchPl]

Building the EE mindmap, I began from scratch on some previously ununderstood points or already discussed/exposed and that had not been solved yet.

Earlier in this Journal, I posted about the PP1 and the acceleration concept. I had said that logically :
- we are into three points
- so we have three moves : from point 1 to point 2, then from point 2 to point 3 and then the whole move from point 1 to point 3.
- if we talk about acceleration, it must then mean between the first two moves, and more precisely the second one compared to the first one.
- the acceleration, as I took it, only could mean "you're going faster from pt 2 to pt3 than from pt1 to pt2." It sounds logic.
And I had deduced that, if we say the first P1 is P1.0, the second P1 is P1.1 and the third and last P1 is P1.2, then to see a PP1 so "three P1 and there is acceleration", then we must have :
P1.2-P1.1 > P1.1 - P1.0.

Reviewing my handcopied documents, this is what I have as for additional requirements to"3 P1's" for a PP1 to be :

I see a huge problem here. To be sure about what I had copied by hand, I checked the original PP!s sheet I have.
Here it is :

If a peak is by nature an increasing volume compared to prior volume bar, then if we have 3 successive P1s, each one must be superior/higher to the prior one.
So, whether I understand the concept of acceleration or not, what is sure is that P1.0 - P1.1 will always be negative
AND
P1.2 -P1.1 will always be positive.

Apart from the fact that doing P1.0 - P1.1 appears to me as totally illogical for now (although the absolute value will always be the same of course), what is definitively ununderstandable is the sense of the inequation.

Do I miss any update of the PP!s sheet and correction of it ?

 

[Sprout]

Building the EE mindmap, I began from scratch on some previously ununderstood points or already discussed/exposed and that had not been solved yet.

Earlier in this Journal, I posted about the PP1 and the acceleration concept. I had said that logically :
- we are into three points
- so we have three moves : from point 1 to point 2, then from point 2 to point 3 and then the whole move from point 1 to point 3.
- if we talk about acceleration, it must then mean between the first two moves, and more precisely the second one compared to the first one.
- the acceleration, as I took it, only could mean "you're going faster from pt 2 to pt3 than from pt1 to pt2." It sounds logic.
And I had deduced that, if we say the first P1 is P1.0, the second P1 is P1.1 and the third and last P1 is P1.2, then to see a PP1 so "three P1 and there is acceleration", then we must have :
P1.2-P1.1 > P1.1 - P1.0.

Reviewing my handcopied documents, this is what I have as for additional requirements to"3 P1's" for a PP1 to be :

View attachment 200890

I see a huge problem here. To be sure about what I had copied by hand, I checked the original PP!s sheet I have.
Here it is :
View attachment 200891

If a peak is by nature an increasing volume compared to prior volume bar, then if we have 3 successive P1s, each one must be superior/higher to the prior one.
So, whether I understand the concept of acceleration or not, what is sure is that P1.0 - P1.1 will always be negative
AND
P1.2 -P1.1 will always be positive.

Apart from the fact that doing P1.0 - P1.1 appears to me as totally illogical for now (although the absolute value will always be the same of course), what is definitively ununderstandable is the sense of the inequation.

Do I miss any update of the PP!s sheet and correction of it ?

The suffix .0,.1,.2 is referring to bar numbers not moves.

 

[WchPl]

This is your first equation:

P1.2-P1.1 > P1.1 - P1.0

Your illogical equation (P1.0 - P1.1) doesn’t follow the same logic, thus why it’s illogical.

Does the labelling first P1 = P1.0, second P1 = P1.1 and third P1 = P1.2 follow the same logic of the PP!s sheet ?

 

[Sprout]

Does the labelling first P1 = P1.0, second P1 = P1.1 and third P1 = P1.2 follow the same logic of the PP!s sheet ?

The post is edited to make clearer; '.0' is always the current bar.

 

[WchPl]

The post is edited to make clearer; '.0' is always the current bar.

Thank you for remind this.

And is it logical to say that if one has three P1s in a row, it means each one is above prior one ?

 

[WchPl]

Here are from your charts :
A not PP1

If P1.0 is the most current bar of the three P1's in a row, then it's the bar where you put Not PP1 box.
And then P1.1 is the bar prior to this "Not PP1 bar".
And P1.2 is the first P1 of the three.
Is that correct ?

If yes, then we have P1.0 above P1.1, and we have P1.1 above P1.2

So, P1.2-P1.1 < 0
And P1.0-P1.1 >0

And then P1.2-P1.1 < P1.0-P1.1 will always be true, except if we think about the absolute value that does not appear anywhere, or better said that I never saw.

So, a PP1 would exist at anytime we have three P1's in a row.

Another exmaple from you :

I don't see any difference here compared to the above example, but there you put PP1.


That's why I don't understand.

 

[WchPl]

That's why I don't understand.

Meanwhile, I rebuild the EE mindmap to have it done thoroughly and logically functional. That's how it begins :

 

[Sprout]

Thank you for remind this.

And is it logical to say that if one has three P1s in a row, it means each one is above prior one ?

You really do have the tools and skill to answer this for yourself. Your self-doubt won't be solved by me giving you answers to answers you already know. Developing greater trust with yourself exists in a ‘you with you’ domain.

Here are from your charts :
A not PP1
View attachment 200897
If P1.0 is the most current bar of the three P1's in a row, then it's the bar where you put Not PP1 box.
And then P1.1 is the bar prior to this "Not PP1 bar".
And P1.2 is the first P1 of the three.
Is that correct ?

If yes, then we have P1.0 above P1.1, and we have P1.1 above P1.2

So, P1.2-P1.1 < 0
And P1.0-P1.1 >0

And then P1.2-P1.1 < P1.0-P1.1 will always be true, except if we think about the absolute value that does not appear anywhere, or better said that I never saw.

So, a PP1 would exist at anytime we have three P1's in a row.

Another exmaple from you :

View attachment 200898

I don't see any difference here compared to the above example, but there you put PP1.


That's why I don't understand.

Consider what is in the parentheses as an absolute value.

As for my chart snippets, the second one is easier to see that the TL was also accelerated.


Upon debrief, the first snippet is a bit on the fence and could very well been ID’d as a PP1. An accelerated TL could be drawn and the volume was very high. The fact that the Open and Close occurred close to the center of the bars has it lean more toward not PP1.
The whole approach is collecting ‘data sets’ where each factor is considered in relation to others.

After you’ve ID’d many PP1’s and not PP1’s the similarities and differences become clearer. Jack doesn’t label not PP1’s very much. It’s only looking through his earlier logs where he has the ‘nots’ as part of the VTP where one can suss out his logical thinking as he developed rdbms.

 

[tiddlywinks]

Include all pieces of information before making conclusions for yourself.

 

[Simples]

Recommended to be following the sheets, Jack's texts/logs/charts, your own MADA, simplifications, various tips, addons and ideas, in that order. So sheets are made most accurate. If something there is illogical, most probably the interpretation isn't correct. So what's the head and what's the tail, if the math is precise and we're talking about acceleration?

I do think not working it all out oneself, is like unknowingly deceiving oneself. Why, because nobody has the complete system, and one will be deviating anyways.