Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

[Sprout]

Attempt

View attachment 202542

Trend Sets end at a C-turn. That C-Turn is included in that trend set. The OOE states that the ends of trends are the beginning of the next. A trend set D that ends in a C-turn, at the next ‘n’ EE, one looks in trend set A just as the OOE states.

An A-Turn can only be coupled with a C-Turn at trend set B.

When a pairing is not found that is a fail and the trend progresses forward irreversibly: A->B->C->D.

This includes trend set D; A-turn not listed as an ‘n-1’.

 

[Sprout]

Trend Sets end at a C-turn. That C-Turn is included in that trend set. The OOE states that the ends of trends are the beginning of the next. A trend set D that ends in a C-turn, at the next ‘n’ EE, one looks in trend set A just as the OOE states.

An A-Turn can only be coupled with a C-Turn at trend set B.

When a pairing is not found that is a fail and the trend progresses forward irreversibly: A->B->C->D.

This includes trend set D; A-turn not listed as an ‘n-1’.

Ie. trends could progress like
A->B
A->B->C
A->B->C->D


Not
A->C
B->D
C->B
D->C

When a C-Turn is found as an ‘n’ listing, the trend set progression begins again at Set A.

 

[WchPl]

Trend Sets end at a C-turn. That C-Turn is included in that trend set. The OOE states that the ends of trends are the beginning of the next. A trend set D that ends in a C-turn, at the next ‘n’ EE, one looks in trend set A just as the OOE states.

An A-Turn can only be coupled with a C-Turn at trend set B.

When a pairing is not found that is a fail and the trend progresses forward irreversibly: A->B->C->D.

This includes trend set D; A-turn not listed as an ‘n-1’.

Ok, now by combining my chart and what you say in the attached post of yours AND most importantly after debriefing and reIDing missed items, this is how I see the things :

09:30 : PP4, we're on A-turn, so Set B. Prior turn was C-turn. Either next EE will by C-turn and we'll go back to A Set trends or no pairing will be found and we'll advance on B-turn so Set C.

09:55 : EE is BO,T1 so pairing is found, we've had C-A-C, Set B is over and we go back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

10:00 : EE is BM,rev, no pairing found, we advance to Set B and have A-turn.

10:25 : EE is BO,T1, still no pairing found so we advance to Set C and have B-turn.

10:50 : EE is Ae, still no pairing found so we advance to Set D and have A-turn. Ae will be our n-1 EE.

10:55 : EE is BM,rev, still no pairing found so new B-turn.

11:05 : EE is BO,T1 si pairing is found, we have C-turn, Set D is over and we go back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

11:10 : two EE : BO,T1 and BM,rev. We both have pairing found if we considoer BO,T1 to BO,T1 AND no pairing found is we consider BO,T1 to BM,rev. I DDd (maybe wrongly) that pairing was found, so C-turn. Set A is over, we go back to it again with both BM,rev and BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

11:20 : no matter wich prior EE we consider, the current PP1 EE makes no pairing possible. We advance to Set B and have A-turn.

11:40 : EE is BM,rev AND BO,T1. Like at 11:10, I saw here Set B over as we have a pairing from PP1 to BO,T1. So back to Set 1 with BM,rev AND BO,T1 as n-1 EE. C-turn

11:50 : EE is BO,T1 so pairing is found if we consider n-1 EE is only BO,T1. So C-turn and back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

12:10 : EE is BO,T1, C-turn and back again in Set A.

12:20 : EE is BO,T1 and BM,rev so once again I see a pairing as BO,T1 to BO,T1 so C-turn and back to Set A.

12:35 : EE is PP1, no pairing so A-turn and advance to Set B.

12:40 : AND PP4 is the EE. Refinement let me see I had incorrectly IDd a BO,T1. SO from PP1 in Set B to (AND) PP4, we have no pairing found, so we advance to Set C and have B-turn.

12:55 : EE is PP1 so pairing is found, we have C-turn and back to Set A with PP1 as n-1 EE.

13:05 : EE are BO,T1 and BM,rev, so in the same logic that I follow since the beginning, I see a pairing from PP1 to BO,T1, so C-turn and still in Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

13:15 : EE is BO,T1, C-turn. Set A again.

13:25 : EE is PP3 so pairing is found, C-turn, Set A from start.

13:45 : EE is BO,T1 so C-turn, Set A from start.

13:50 : EE is BO,T1 so C-turn, start again from Set A.

14:05 : EE is PP1 so no pairing is found, so A-turn and advance to Set B with PP1 as n-1 EE.

14:10 : EE is PP4 so no pairing found, B-turn and advance to Set C with PP4 as n-1 EE.

14:25 : ÊE is BO,T1 so pairing is found, C-turn and back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

14:40 : EE is BO,T1 so pairng is found, C-turn, restart in Set A.

14:45 : EEs are AND PP4 and BO,T1 and BM,rev. I see a pairing from BO, T1 to BO,T1 so C-turn and restart in Set A.

Inbetween here, there's somehting happening that makes the next fuzzy and surely erroneous. It surely began in the past already.

15:00 : n-1 EE are AND PP4 + BO,T1 + BMrev. EE is BO,T1 so I see a pairing so C-turn and restart in Set A. BUT, the arrow finds thn itself on the opposite side of the BM which is short here. There's somehting to refine here.

15:05 : EE is BO,T1 si C-turn and back again in Set A.

15:25 : EE is PP1 so no pairing found and A-turn, progressing towards Set B.

15:50 : EE is BO,T1 so pairing is found so C-turn and restart in Set A.

16:00 : EE is BO,T1 so C-turn and restart at Set A.

16:10 : BO,T1 so C-turn ad restart at Set A.



The only solution I see at the moment to spot correctly the arrows that in the end of the chart are on the opposite side of the BMs, would be to assign on 14:45pm bar two C-turns : one for the BO,T1 / BM,rev that show a short move AND another C-turn down this bar point up for the AND PP4 that tells in advance there will be on next bar a long move.

OR

I'm missing some IDs in the VTP or the EE that lead to incorrect IDs of the turns.


I'll log next day in the agenda and refine my chart and post it. I'm also gonna try to understand what is to be explored to get clarity in what is fuzzy at the moment.

 

[Sprout]

View attachment 202667

Ok, now by combining my chart and what you say in the attached post of yours AND most importantly after debriefing and reIDing missed items, this is how I see the things :

09:30 : PP4, we're on A-turn, so Set B. Prior turn was C-turn. Either next EE will by C-turn and we'll go back to A Set trends or no pairing will be found and we'll advance on B-turn so Set C.

09:55 : EE is BO,T1 so pairing is found, we've had C-A-C, Set B is over and we go back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

10:00 : EE is BM,rev, no pairing found, we advance to Set B and have A-turn.

10:25 : EE is BO,T1, still no pairing found so we advance to Set C and have B-turn.

10:50 : EE is Ae, still no pairing found so we advance to Set D and have A-turn. Ae will be our n-1 EE.

10:55 : EE is BM,rev, still no pairing found so new B-turn.

11:05 : EE is BO,T1 si pairing is found, we have C-turn, Set D is over and we go back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

11:10 : two EE : BO,T1 and BM,rev. We both have pairing found if we considoer BO,T1 to BO,T1 AND no pairing found is we consider BO,T1 to BM,rev. I DDd (maybe wrongly) that pairing was found, so C-turn. Set A is over, we go back to it again with both BM,rev and BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

11:20 : no matter wich prior EE we consider, the current PP1 EE makes no pairing possible. We advance to Set B and have A-turn.

11:40 : EE is BM,rev AND BO,T1. Like at 11:10, I saw here Set B over as we have a pairing from PP1 to BO,T1. So back to Set 1 with BM,rev AND BO,T1 as n-1 EE. C-turn

11:50 : EE is BO,T1 so pairing is found if we consider n-1 EE is only BO,T1. So C-turn and back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

12:10 : EE is BO,T1, C-turn and back again in Set A.

12:20 : EE is BO,T1 and BM,rev so once again I see a pairing as BO,T1 to BO,T1 so C-turn and back to Set A.

12:35 : EE is PP1, no pairing so A-turn and advance to Set B.

12:40 : AND PP4 is the EE. Refinement let me see I had incorrectly IDd a BO,T1. SO from PP1 in Set B to (AND) PP4, we have no pairing found, so we advance to Set C and have B-turn.

12:55 : EE is PP1 so pairing is found, we have C-turn and back to Set A with PP1 as n-1 EE.

13:05 : EE are BO,T1 and BM,rev, so in the same logic that I follow since the beginning, I see a pairing from PP1 to BO,T1, so C-turn and still in Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

13:15 : EE is BO,T1, C-turn. Set A again.

13:25 : EE is PP3 so pairing is found, C-turn, Set A from start.

13:45 : EE is BO,T1 so C-turn, Set A from start.

13:50 : EE is BO,T1 so C-turn, start again from Set A.

14:05 : EE is PP1 so no pairing is found, so A-turn and advance to Set B with PP1 as n-1 EE.

14:10 : EE is PP4 so no pairing found, B-turn and advance to Set C with PP4 as n-1 EE.

14:25 : ÊE is BO,T1 so pairing is found, C-turn and back to Set A with BO,T1 as n-1 EE.

14:40 : EE is BO,T1 so pairng is found, C-turn, restart in Set A.

14:45 : EEs are AND PP4 and BO,T1 and BM,rev. I see a pairing from BO, T1 to BO,T1 so C-turn and restart in Set A.

Inbetween here, there's somehting happening that makes the next fuzzy and surely erroneous. It surely began in the past already.

15:00 : n-1 EE are AND PP4 + BO,T1 + BMrev. EE is BO,T1 so I see a pairing so C-turn and restart in Set A. BUT, the arrow finds thn itself on the opposite side of the BM which is short here. There's somehting to refine here.

15:05 : EE is BO,T1 si C-turn and back again in Set A.

15:25 : EE is PP1 so no pairing found and A-turn, progressing towards Set B.

15:50 : EE is BO,T1 so pairing is found so C-turn and restart in Set A.

16:00 : EE is BO,T1 so C-turn and restart at Set A.

16:10 : BO,T1 so C-turn ad restart at Set A.



The only solution I see at the moment to spot correctly the arrows that in the end of the chart are on the opposite side of the BMs, would be to assign on 14:45pm bar two C-turns : one for the BO,T1 / BM,rev that show a short move AND another C-turn down this bar point up for the AND PP4 that tells in advance there will be on next bar a long move.

OR

I'm missing some IDs in the VTP or the EE that lead to incorrect IDs of the turns.


I'll log next day in the agenda and refine my chart and post it. I'm also gonna try to understand what is to be explored to get clarity in what is fuzzy at the moment.

You’re not applying the first two statements in post #861. Instead you are including the C-turn that completes a trend into the next trend.

 

[WchPl]

Yes, definitely I know now which zone is causing me troubles with reversed turns compared to BM : it's when OB are on P1 assigned du to current EE or prior one.
Happy to know now where to find :

Part 1 MADA on 07/05/19 & Log

 

[WchPl]

You’re not applying the first two statements in post #861. Instead you are including the C-turn that completes a trend into the next trend.

I did not see this post before I posted the prior one. Thank you for pointing out what i'm missing. I'm struggling a bit to get it, I will give my brain a little rest and will restudy post #861. Thank you very very much @Sprout

 

[WchPl]

Trend Sets end at a C-turn. That C-Turn is included in that trend set. The OOE states that the ends of trends are the beginning of the next. A trend set D that ends in a C-turn, at the next ‘n’ EE, one looks in trend set A just as the OOE states.

An A-Turn can only be coupled with a C-Turn at trend set B.

You’re not applying the first two statements in post #861. Instead you are including the C-turn that completes a trend into the next trend.

I am struggling a lot in managing to see how "the OOE states that the ends of trends are the beginning of the next" and "you are including the C-turn that completes a trend into the next trend" are contradictory.

I'm dissecting your post about the use of Modrian Table to get it, and currently I'm still blocked. It'll be solved soon.

 

[WchPl]

You’re not applying the first two statements in post #861. Instead you are including the C-turn that completes a trend into the next trend.

At the moment, I understand this statement as : don't include the C turn that completes a trend into the next trend, so exclude it.
At first, I thought it was that when a C-turn is there, ending a trend, then the EE found on this C-turn was becoming the next trend and so this EE would become the n-1 EE to start from in Set A.
Then after thinking of it, I thought if I'm to not include the C-turn ending a trend into the next one, then the EE creating the C-turn i question would not become the n-1 EE used to start in Set A. So which one would be ? I DDd that I'd have to wait another EE that would constitute the n-1 EE from which to start in Set A. And the next EE would be the n EE. So I went to see on your latest charts posted elsewhere, to see if there were EE with no "x"-turn associated. I did not find any. Seems like any EE has its turn associated.

So I went back to the post where you explained me the flow of the use of Modrian table and that's what I'm rereading currently to get it clear.


It had been a little while since I had not faced something that hard to understand, and athough it's not full of pleasure to be in this, I feel satisfied to be stuck once again.

Reading, thinking and doing my best to get what you said.

 

[WchPl]

Maybe using your charts at my level is not a good thing to do , but here I don't understand.

On the arrow with the number 62, you located a B turn in Set D. Let's admit this.
In Modrian Table, we're in Set D at B turn and last EE was BM,rev.

The next EE is Af. Being as our last n EE was BM,rev I look in Modrian Table in the n-1 column and start from BM,rev and search for Af in the n list. It is not, so no pairing is found, so new A-turn. Our last n EE, Af, becomes the new n-1 EE.
The next EE is both BO,T1 and PP6. So I look in Modrian table in Set D in n-1 list and...there is no Af in routine cell. So no pairing is found of course but here I loose the thing.

Another thing; on the only C turn appearing on this chart snippet, we're ina Set A. Clear. The EE on this C turn has been BM,rev. The next EE is BO,T1, so I look in the Modrizan Table in n-1 list and start from BM,rev and search for a pairing with BO,T1. It's not in the list, so we advance with A-turn towards Set B. You labelled an A-turn on Set A, not on Set B.

I am used to notice this kind of things and with experience I know when I see two things contradictory but you say they are not, then I need more differenciation. But I must admit there, I would feel really better if it was a typo or if the truth is that I should not, at my level, use your charts if I want to have more clarity.

 

[Sprout]

At the moment, I understand this statement as : don't include the C turn that completes a trend into the next trend, so exclude it.
At first, I thought it was that when a C-turn is there, ending a trend, then the EE found on this C-turn was becoming the next trend and so this EE would become the n-1 EE to start from in Set A.
Then after thinking of it, I thought if I'm to not include the C-turn ending a trend into the next one, then the EE creating the C-turn i question would not become the n-1 EE used to start in Set A. So which one would be ? I DDd that I'd have to wait another EE that would constitute the n-1 EE from which to start in Set A. And the next EE would be the n EE. So I went to see on your latest charts posted elsewhere, to see if there were EE with no "x"-turn associated. I did not find any. Seems like any EE has its turn associated.

So I went back to the post where you explained me the flow of the use of Modrian table and that's what I'm rereading currently to get it clear.


It had been a little while since I had not faced something that hard to understand, and athough it's not full of pleasure to be in this, I feel satisfied to be stuck once again.

Reading, thinking and doing my best to get what you said.

The Modrian table is a listing of all 'n' C-turns; a C-turn ends a trend. As such it gets listed at a part of the Trend Set it just completed.

Since it's a C-Turn, at the next EE, it does as you state become the 'n-1' EE. Being that then it is the start of trend A. If a listing is found then it is a C-turn to C-turn and the 'n' EE is a C-turn in trend set A.

As for Trend Set D's, when there is an 'n-1' A-turn, the next becomes a B-turn simply because of how the Modrian table is designed. If you think about it that's the essential characteristic of a trend that is 'Drifting.'

There are two events that are collapsed at the moment where introducing the Move Reversal table might help.

Let's say that the 'n' turn is not a C-turn in Trend Set A. Then by the logic of the Modrian, it becomes an A-turn. At this moment it is still part of Trend Set A and the MR table is consulted to find that pairing of 'turn-EE'. This is where the color-coding is helpful. Let's say the 'n' turn is a BM-rev. It's not listed as a C-turn, but in consulting the Move Reversal the A-turn, EE pairing is found. That makes the Move Reversal ID as true and a colored blob is annotated by the Turn,Trend ID on the chart. The moves in the 'pattern' are reversals of each other. M1->M2->M3->M1->M2->M3, etc. It's after the Move Reversal ID, that the trend progresses forward and the 'n' turn becomes the 'n-1' turn in Trend Set B.

An analogy of the Modrian/MR table is similar to finding trail markers when hiking. There are times when one isn't quite certain they are on the trail but coming across a marker eases anxiety and promotes confidence.


My past charts work with operating points and as such there could be inconsistencies between them as I explored different sets of logic - ie, including what you are currently going through with C-turns as being labeled as the ending trend and/or as the beginning of the new one (and which set to include it.) As you are also becoming aware, that annotating and logging, especially at the stage you find yourself in, requires quite a bit of mental exertion, fortitude and stamina.

Mistakes, omissions, and mis-ID's are par for the course - that's what debriefing is for.

Those errors dimmish in frequency as one continues the process. The chart snippet that you have posted in an un-debriefed chart. I do recommend that you do work with Jack's (& students) charts first and foremost. Even those by Jack, they do have inconsistencies from time to time and a majority (if not all) of those where one finds inconsistencies are un-debriefed charts as well. I'm come to believe that it was intentional. Most specifically for the intention of supporting building one's mind and stimulating one's own 'comparing and contrasting' deduction skills.

As some point one has to begin to trust themselves and their relationship to the market based on the work they have done building their mind from the market's basic granularity on up. There's definitely a leap required. In my own path, I've come to discover; it's the principals that create the guidance, not necessarily any artifacts left behind. The artifacts are supportive for sure but I think it's part of the screening process and where a number of folks just give up coming to a conclusion that Jack's work is gibberish and that it doesn't pan out logically.