Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

[WchPl]

For most it's wondrous you're able to compile all this from deduction and LTM. As for all these different turns at different fractals other than TF, a chosen tf only provide one level of volume elements I believe?

I've not yet validated or been able to use MT. Some texts I found, some containing clues possible to investigate MR further:

1. I have a steady universe and I will add and remove from this universe as ideas pop into my radar. My stable universe consists of stocks that are relatively coordi
nated. I trade them nearly everyday (RIMM, AAPL, ADBE, etc). These allow me a daily comfort where I trade based on classic signals using reversals, pivots and flags.
They vary in price but the volume allows efficient exit and entry for the size I trade.
2. You see red and black squares for move reversals. These are for trading "moves" of trends and are seen on a 30 min chart. NB: it is impotant to annotate the 30
min chart channels correctly. If you do NOT know where pt 1 is nothing can be done to do channels correctly. Obviously, a prson needs a key to know he knows which
5 minute turns are the correct turns for doing reversals on a thirty minute chart. we have such a key and it, as expected is color codded in the same set manner a
s is the Modrian Table. We created a way for those who do not have faciltiy to trade the 5 minute chart. What this means is that there is an expectation that a per
son knows he knows BEFORE the reversal moment and he watches the moment come into the present.
All of this takes you to the move reversal table. This is where you determine if a reversal blob can be added to the price pane decision and action annotation (the
colored blob).
Anyone in ET can speak as they wish. One path is to keep improving what is going on as a means to learn more and more about making money in the market. Here, I hav
e attached a chart that is composed of nine tables (each has a different color than black) that are like many sets of rules that correspond to the steps you are post
ing about. you can see that the fractal of 30 minutes has become 5 minutes.... further you see that the trading on the ES is being preceded by the market move on th
e YM and DJ spread using the 2 minute charts for them. Finally, you see that the DOM of the ES is used as would be the T&S tape reading. What is missing is how thr
ee separate indicators each set to appropriate defaults are also in the picture. What makes it even more interesting is the mechanical version of all of this. The
OP is now doing the baseline reference so you can see that when the whole picture is revealed we can use the work of the Original Poster who copied some stuff from 6
years ago as a reference. It may be more apparent to you now why I asked him to do the four progressions side by side everyday. It will be a short cut for ET reade
rs to get the first three improvements completed. Then we can add variables and add indicators and add annotations and add T&S and add leading indexes of the ES and
their indicators to the mix. It is possible that the OP will not complete the course; each time he starts he poops out on setting the reference base line.
He may or may not know that the market has but one trend pattern. At bar 15 he uses it as a point 3. His net at the time is the dominant move less the non dominant
move or if he is alert and taking the whole offer of the market his net is the dominant move PLUS the non-dominant move. Thirdly he could be icarus and don an entr
y on bar 3 and a reversal short on bar 13 and arrived short at the lower end of bar 15. Two profitable trades in hand. At bar 15 he MUST be seeing the ftt of the f
adter fractal short you say he is holding. So he goes long at point 3 on bar 15 and redumes making more money.
In the 20 days learning to be an expert, I posts all my lookup tables that can be used in an ATS built using SQL or equivalent. A mong other things there ae the 8 p
anels of the Modrian table. Each panel has two columns. the left one is the n -1 turn and the right column is the reversal on the n turn. The entries in these col
umns are ALL End Effects of trends. furthermore, the top four panels are failsafe panels which use "indicators" to assure NOT missing a subfractal move.
It is like the whole earth's action is speeding up and everything has become unstable. For example, the seal and penguin roosting sites are moving 50 miles a year a
t this point. They do move about and they have to adapt to temp changes to keep things straight. But at one time they used fences and automatic weighing gates (the
animals are banded with microchips) for several years. Now yearly change prevents this.
so far you do not know the details of using the move reversal look up table.
So the post mortem TJ and why I don't respond to the value of any of your recommendations is because there's little doubt in my mind that you may have developed some
timing models, but they are trying to catch a down move too soon and that you're actually leaving money on the table moreso worrying about the Hershey type down so
that you should certainly be shorting at highs, but not if they are still breaching previous highs.
So this lookup table (Move Reversals) being posted refines the last aspect of a turn into: holding thru, sidelining, taking the trade and taking the trade while mini
mizing losses.so far you do not know the details of using the move reversal look up table.
The last point you made (knowing when to hold against an adverse move) is the most convoluted IMO. Anything that takes my profits of the table is too "adverse" for m
e to deal with hence I get out and look after another entry. Sometimes this method will get me the optimum profit, othertimes I am watching the price continue. I do
not yet have the skills to really identify the critical price information in order to make a more favorable decision at the correct time? Is the MM messing with me?
Are we reversing? What is the pertinent info?
Those beyond beginner can trade point to point on the trading fractal. The first trading fractal contains three trades. From the FTT to point 2 a trade is done and
the next trad to point 3 is under way; it extends to the new FTT after the greenbook mark extends that trade. @ the new FTT a long is taken and @ pt 2 a reverse is
made and held through the green to the FTT. Wash and rinse each tome to have a pair of profitable trades. Whne a point 3 occurs the point to point holds to the FTT
and reverses into the first move towards point 2.
To do this you have a 1/2 inch three ring binder. Under plastic front cover you place the Modrian table. Under the back plastic cover you place the Move Reversal t
able. Each table is color coded into eight parts. The vertical divisions are the four trend types. The top half is the failsafe; the bottom half is the tested eve
nts portion.
To put the blob on the turn, I use the "Move Reversal " look up table. It has trend type and EE type colored the same as the modrian table.​

Who/Where is that from ?

 

[WchPl]

What if we've just had a second B-turn in a Set D ? -> the next turn can only be A-turn because of how the trend in the MT is built.

Correction : What if we've just had a second A-turn in a Set D ? -> the next turn can only be B-turn because of how the trend in the MT is built.

 

[Simples]

Who/Where is that from ?

Text search through Jack's posts, although some sentences may be quotes by others inside Jack's response post. You may find back to the thread/post by searching ET. After reading alot of Jack, I somehow can guess if it's Jack original or someone else being confused! Anyhow, each concept is testable, although may need later revisit.

 

[Sprout]

That's what causing me troubles for the now, among things. As far as I've read the "butt handed on a daily bsis" Journal (I'm currently at post #703 and the last from jack I have is #1054), no mention is made about MR table use nor process. Wait and see.

Here is an attempt to synthetise a bit what I've in mind. As always this will reveal with more precision both to you and me, where I fail.

A)
When looking at the market at any timeframe, we always can see the path price made along that timeframe. On JH's RDBMS, the 5min is the one used.
On any timeframe, we can observe at leats three fractal levels interlocking and overlapping. All fractals interlock.
The most granular, so to speak the most little piece of the path made by price that is available, is one bar. Each price bar has its volume bar associated.
After a price bar and its volume level lock in, a next one is coming up. At the moment the prior (n-1) bar closes and reveals its definitive form, the next one opens, let's say one secon after. Here we have two possibilities. Either the open of n bar will match prior close or it will not. If it does not match we do the necessary to get it matching. In RDBMS terms, we degap.
After degapping if it was required, then we see the n bar forming and finally lockin in at its turn. At this moment, we have two price bars in a row, with the two volume bars associated.
Here we have ten possibilities : coupled with the first price bar, the second one creates a PC being part of a 10 cases Matrix, geometrically defined.
Here, we have two possibilities : either the PC in question allows to measure volume, or it does not. We know what to do when it does not.
When the PC allows to measure volume, we then are to perform the VTP, exposing the 5 elements of the OOE of Volume elements.
Then more bars come along, and we do MADA routine on each and every bar. As long as we can measure volume, we do it and here we have two possibilities : at each bar appearing, either this bar will be included in the initiated trend, or it will not.
Any trend begins with a P1, a BM and its associated RTL. As long as the new forming bar is included inside this initiated trend, then it will have a name in price (pt1, pt2, pt3, new pts1,2,3, ve etc.) and it will have a volume label being part of shortenly speaking 5 volumes elements. More precisely there are 7 and completely there are 11. This involves the "Not" and "Not Not" concepts. at each bar appearing, either this bar will be included in the initiated trend, or it will not.

Yes.
There are 10 Price Cases, 11 volume elements and 10 subsets of EE's. The VTP on your log exposes the primary band which contains 3, the secondary that contains 2. The remaining are part of M3; the four that are not used are the "not's" and "not not's" which I believe are part of the D, E Bands. There are some posted logs that have the "not's" as part of the VTP. Jack hasn't explicitly stated this in the literature and can only be arrived at through deduction. The final two are P3x's, which are implicit and give rise to the EE classifications.



As just stated above, if the bar for a multitude of reasons is included into the trend, this means the trend is progressing, the trend is not over.
Or, the new forming bar is not included into the trend/ in ending the trend. A serie of bars defining a trend is a trend segment. It's a part of a trend. This segment of several (or only one) bars in a row defining a unique trend segment is geometrically encapsulated by a tape/extended tape. If the new forming bar says the trend is over, it means only one thing : an opposite trend segment is coming up. When a trend segment is over, we have two things : one EE and one part of a FF. We can have 2 possibilities to have an EE regardless of what volume does and we can have 33 possibilities to have an EE regardly of what volume (and price sometimes) do(es).
Some EE tell us the new opposite coming trend begins on the bar on which we IDd the EE, whle other EE tell us the new opposite coming trend will be beginning at the next bar that is about to come. P1 is/will be assigned on the appropriate bar then.

B)
At each EE, we have a change of trend. There are two kinds of trends : dominants and non dominants. So we have four kinds of transition : from D to D, from D to nD, from nD to D and from nD to nD.
From D to D is a change of dominance -> reversal
From D to nD is not a change of dominance -> retrace
From nD to D is a back to dominance -> trend extension/completion
From nD-nD does not make sense and is, so to speak, impossible as all trends overlap AND all trends have two ends and a middle.

So we have in fact, 3 kinds of transition. In RDBMS terms : we have three kinds of Turns.
C-Turn is D-D
A-Turn is D-nD
B-Turn is nD-D

Yes. All true. There is a nD-nD turn that is not exposed. Jack does mention the existence of this turn but that for all MADA purposes it is not logged nor annotated.


The following post is where I first deduced it in my own path of DD.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/fractal-theory-redux.303677/page-10


When the first initiated trend segment is over because we've located any of the 35 possible EEs, a new one begins with its P1, BM and rtl associated. When this one ends too, we've had two trend segments. Then a third one arrives and it will also end at any moment.
Once we have three segments (but not necessary three tapes at a single given timeframe) we have a FF. When we have three FFs we have a TF. Once we have three TF we have a SF.
The 5min TF places the TF between an upper enveloppe : SF, and a lower enveloppe : FF. In other words, the TF is encapsulated by a supfractal and a subfractal.
By doing MADA on the most granular pieces of the markets on the 5min, we are allowed to observe the dependant and the independant elements faster than the TF. This gives a huge advantage.
One we get all the three fractal levels interlocking and overlapping, we're ready to go cause all the necessary is there to to RDBMS and extract the full offer of the markets.

Yes. Jack when initially presenting RDBMS has frequently said that there are 56 unique elements of the Market's System of Operation. 56 - 21 does equal 35. However through subsequent postings where Jack has described the system there have been other additions to the EE classifications. ie. Ae -> further defined as Ae-1 and Ae-2, PP4a, PP5b and others. Think of them as easter eggs.


As previously stated, When a trend segment, composed of the most granular elements available that are unique price/volume bars, ends then there is a Turn, inverting the sense and direction of the trend. There are three kinds of Turns. One of them ends a dominance and switches to the opposite one (C), another one ends dominance to lead to non dominance (A) and the other one ends the prior non dominance compared to the prior dominance and is back to that first dominance (B).

As we have three possible turns, we have different possible sequences of Turns in a row. Turns, as Volume elements do, follow an OOE. The nature of the sequence of turns in a row define a certain type of trend nature. There are four trend natures.
The archetypal trend nature is given by The Pattern that shows three moves in a row, each one being oppositely directed compared to the prior and next one. So long/short/long OR short/long/short.

The only possible sequence are :
C-C -> this is a sequence of two trend segments, opposite in terms of sense/direction, and being both dominant. This defines the Set A of possible Trends. That trend is not corresponding to the archetypal trend nature. Therefore, it's an inomplete type of trend. In other words the trend failed to progress towards/until completion.

C-A-C -> this is a sequence of two trend segments in a row with the first one being on a given side and initiated by a C-turn; the second is inverted compared to the first one and is initiated by an A-turn; and a third trend segment begins and is, in terms of side, the same as the prior one and it's leaded by a C-turn. In this kind of sequence, we have Set B type of trend. Although this is a more complete kind of trend than Set A, we still do not have a complete trend. This is a more complete into non-completion trend.

C-A-B-C - this is a sequence of three trend segments in a row with a first one initiated by a C-turn and it has a side; when it ends, an A turn came up and a new trend segment began and being on the other side; then this second trend segment ends as a B-turn arrives leading then a third trend segment on the same side as the first trend segment; then it ends and a C-turn arrives so a new trend segment is coming and it will be on the opposite side compared to the very first trend that initiated this first compete kind of trend : Set C. It's the normal archetypal trend defining completion : the first C-turn is the ftt inside the prior trend, price passes from a non dominant volume support to dominant support so in terms of price we have price switching its dominance and in terms of volume SCT terms we have either B2B or R2R.
Then A-turn comes along so pt2 is created, and price retraces until it fails to create C-turn (otherwise we'd have had Set B trend); so it creates B-turn and so price returns to its first dominant move and pt3 has been created. Then, as price is coming from its RTL and going towards its left one, it fails to traverse and we have in SCT terms an ftt, in RDBMS terms we have a C-turn and dominance has changed. Price begins to go on the same side as thr prior retrace and on the same trend segments, volume passes from DEC to INC on the same color.

C-A-B(A-B)-C -> Set D. This is a sequence beginning the same as Set C. When in Set C we defined an ftt ending this trend, instead we find another A-turn when in Set D. Another retrace is coming. After an A-turn in Set D, we can only have B-turn. This is more completion into completion. That's the last kind of trend Sets.

Yes.

There are a couple of caveats.
1) You are attempting to view RDBMS terms through the lens of SCT. The case in point is when first drilling the turns we associated the turns to Increasing and Decreasing Volume. There was a purpose for this and that was to create a baseline, a reference point to compare and contrast from based on a certain level of perception. On one level of awareness it can still be interpreted that way. On another level of awareness it is not. A case in point is when sometimes when logging and annotating the trends look upside down when viewed through an SCT lens using RDBMS terms. Other times the larger trends do not look as precise as an SCT annotated trend.
2) So instead of viewing it in a dualist manner, it's supportive to view it in an integrative manner as one is collecting a dataset.


C)
So from two price bars we define PC. From a given PC we determine if we're allowed to measure the independant variable. From the result of that measurement if done, we get a volume element labeled and a continuation of a trend segment. When a trend segment ends, we encounter an EE. When an EE comes, the trend segment is over and an opposite one is beginning. When an EE comes, its associated turn is there also. This keeps us in knowing wich side of the market is currently dominant. When several turns in a row ad IDd we know in which kind of trend we're in. We open when dominance changes/begin, we hold through when non dominance comes, we reverse when dominance changes, and so on.

Yes.

The caveat is that you are at a point where further distinction can be had in regards to MADA signals and trading actions. Jack further differentiates trading actions to include: Entry, Early Entry, Hold Thru, Early Exit, Exit, Opposite Entry, Wait and Sideline.
He gets into this in SCTlearning from scratch thread. Post 200ish


In terms of work, tools and practice, how do we ID turns from EE ? We use the MT.
The MT is made up of 8 cells. Two rows of 4 cells, an upper row and a lower row.
As deep as I understand this table, it links every possible sequence of two EE in a row and leads to be able to define the nature of each turn.
The upper row like the lower one is divided in for cells, one for each trend Set.
On the upper row, we deal with, whichever Set we're in, the sequences of two possible EE in a row with as first EE the two FSs. On the lower row, we find the possible sequences of two EEs in a row from all the 33 remaining EE.
What's the core of the MT ? -> it shows in each cell, two columns : an "n-1" column with given EEs from which arrows are pointing to other EEs. These are the sequences.
What is a sequence made of ? -> a beginning, a middle and an end.
What is the end of any EE sequence available in the MT ? -> "n" EEs
What does this mean in terms of non-dominance of trend segments -> we're in an absence of non -dominance.
What is the absence of non-dominance ? -> the presence of the dominance.
What kind of the three turns do we find when both "n-1" and "n" EEs in a given cell are effectively encountered on the chart, one after the other -> C-turn
What is a C-turn ? -> a Change in dominance.
What do we do when dominance changes : we reverse
What do we do when non dominance comes : we hold

To reiterate, you are describing how Jack describes the trading process to a beginner which in practice as one's skill develop is much more involved in terms of just holding and reversing.


What's the goal of all that stuff -> be in the "always-in", so to speak in the only reverse action.
Therefore, what if from a given encountered n-1 EE, the next EE, which will be the n EE in the

This is also something that can trip people up. "Always-in" can be interpreted from a number of vantage points. On one level, "always-in" in terms of MADA is just that, annotating and logging and as a beginner looking for opportunities to enter/exit to/from the sidelines. This is in the context of trading larger timeframes such as SSR and PVT. Imho, it was also a way to create a bridge from CW to the possibility of SCT.

In faster timeframes, as one gains skill, the trading actions previously mentioned above come more into play. As far as I can tell from the various clues, extracting 1mil/day from the market's was the bar that Jack set. He was running multiple concurrent systems in multiple markets with teams of traders. I'm not gonna comment on it anymore than that other than from a vast majority of perspectives this is simply unbelievable. I have no way of really verifying this and there is the possibility that he was trolling. The only thing that I have verified is the pace by which he claimed one can experience the doubling of trading capital. The work that you have done as well as how you have engaged in 'paying it forward' puts you on track to have this latter experience for yourself at some point. You are building inference that can change your perception. As for the former, well, he was a master genius whom perfected his craft over a lifetime, ymmv.


MT cell, is not present in the list ? -> we do not have C-turn.
What are the possible turns ? - > C, B, A
If we do not have C-turn, which turn can we have ? -> B or A
How to be able to determine whch of the two is at hand when one see C-turn is not possible -> by knowing which Set of trends we're in
What if we're in a Set A, and C-turn is not here cause the n EE is not in the list and then no linking is there / linking failure is there ? -> the turns follow an OOE, se we can only have A-turn.
Being as an OOE says only one piece can come after/one another defined one, what does this mean if the OOE of turns is progressing ? -> the OOE of trend Sets is progressing
So, if Set A is not at hand being as an A-turn just occured, which kind of Set are we in ? -> Set B. So to speak, Set A is extinguished.

If the next EE is once again not listed, what does this mean in terms of turn and trend Set ? -> we've just had B-turn and Set B extinguished to come to a Set C.
What if the next EE is once again not in the list ? -> Set C is extinguished so we have new A-turn and Set D is at hand.
What if we've just had a second B-turn in a Set D ? -> the next turn can only be A-turn because of how the trend in the MT is built.

This is your current sticking point. Advancing to the next Set of Trends in the OOE of Trends only occurs after consulting the MR table which occurs after collecting a false of turn n test as c-turn.


The end of a trend set is different than the beginning of a trend set. When a trend begins, it's either A, B, C or D kind of trend. Turn after Turn, the nature of the Set of trend we're in is revealing itself. So with my words, i'd say now rather than " the end of a trend is different than the beginning of a trend" -> when a trend begins, as long as not enought urns has been identified, we don't know which kind of Set we're in. When more turns surge, we become aware of a more precise idea of the Set of trend our trend segments are in.
Looking at the MT I'd say :
A trend segment begins. With P1 as always.
When an A-turn appears, we know the segment we were tracking is not part of a Set A nature of trend. Only B, C or D are remaining. Otherwise, if a C-turn appears, we know that segment was itself, alone, a completed not complete kind of trend : Set A.
When a B-turn appears, we know our two segments were not part of a Set B. Otherwise we would have a C-turn after A-turn so that the two segments we were tracking were, since the beginning, completing a non complete Set B. So we enter into the possibility of a Set C.
When a new A-turn appears, we finally know two things : the first P1 of the first of the three segments we tracked, initiated a Set D + the next turn will be showing dominance as a B-turn defines it. At the moment a new A-turn is IDd, we do not search for a C-turn after that. It cannot come. Only B-turn will surge * I will deal with that star later.
So, the beginning of a trend is the beginning of its first move (it can have 1, 2, 3, 4 +) therefore the beginning of its first segment. Either this first segment, when ended, will by an A-turn lead to a non dominant new trend segment and this will not be the end of the trend BUT the end of the prior trend SEGMENT. Thus, the TREND does not end when A trend segment ends BUT when any of its trend SEGMENTS ends with a C-turn.
Finally,
- if we have a Set A -> it's made of ONE segment initiated by a C-turn and ending by a C-turn
- if we have a Set B -> it's made of TWO trend segments with an A-turn in between them
- if we have a Set C -> it's made of THREE trend segments with A-turn and B-turn in between
- if we have a Set D -> it's made of AT LEAST FIVE trend segments.

Conclusion : the difference between the end of a trend Set and the beginning of a trend Set is that a trend Set begins when the prior Set in the OOE fails to complete (in its completion or non completion). In other words, a trend Set begins when the prior one does NOT end.

Set A can exist as C-C and C-A, it only ends at the next n event,
Set B can exist as inbetween the parenthesis as an progression of Set A; C-A-(C) and C-A-(B), it only ends at the next n event, C-A-B-(C) and C-A-B-(A) etc..


NB : * I will deal with that star later.
-> Along the "butt handed on a daily basis" I'm currently reading with a lot of concentration and attention, I see JH keeps on statting that with the MT, one always knows wich will be the next turn, or we always know n-1 turn in advance.
For now, I only see that this happen when a second A-turn appears along a trend (so we're in Set D), cause here we know the next turn will be a B-turn.

AND

I'm also seeing a possibility to know one turn in advance with an exercise I'm doing parallely to my readings : by seeing the sequence of the volume elements developping along a trend segment one can reduce the possibility of surge of the next EE. Example : we're in Set B kind of trend, the n-1 EE was PP6. Then the new trend segment begins, and the OOE progresses until a first T1. Then, the next turn will be a B-turn.
The only problem for now is that I've not managed to establish sequences of the volume OOE reducing systematically all the possible n EE that are in the list. There's always a doubt. Maybe I should go deeper in the DDs about that. I'll surely do it.
Plus, this would not mean we know which turn is coming ASA the prior has come. It would need some (and sometimes many) bars revealed to determine it.

I can feel there's something important in what I just said but I can't handle it for now.


D)
What I can DD for now is that :
1- When successively Sets A and B have extinguished, we're in Set C and when entering is Set C we'll either have C-turn cause the next EE will be listed in the appropriate panel or an A-turn leading then to a Set D AND this will mean we already know when that second A-turn came up which will be the next turn.
2- if we know at Trend D which will be the next turn when the second A-turn comes, we then know it will be a B-turn.
3- the MT presents all the C-turns and lists them.
4- From 3- and 4- I can DD when the second A-turn in a given trend has come, we already know the next EE we'll find will NOT be in the list.

Yes. It starts here but as you gain differentiation, the anticipatory perception builds. This will come as you practice and log the turns and trend types.


E) All fractals interlock. On any timeframe we can observe at least three interlocking fractals. The 5min timeframe places the TF in between th FF and the SF. It is on the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made.
That is from JH.
If I understand properly and entirely what is stated there, I'd say this means we monitor on the 5min, and take decision from looking at the TF on the 5min.
Therefore :
1- as I know, each bear can be broken into 1/2/3 unilateral parts. If zoomed in, the bar reveals a path price that can be encapsulated by a chanel.
2- when several bars in a row come up, they form a tape.That tape began with a prior ftt creating the pt1 of that tape. This tape which is a trend segment will have at any moment, an end. It will be its EE and its ftt. This was M1.
3- when the EE comes, another opposite trend segment/tape/bar is beginning. The prior tape had on the EE an ftt, which becomes pt1 of the new opposite trend segment/tape/bar developping. This is M2.
4- the second trend segment/tape/bar will also have an end. It will be its EE which will be its ftt which is the pt1 of a third trend segment/tape/bar. This is M3.
5- Let's get a simple illustration before going any further

View attachment 203462

In thin black/red lines we've got the TS fractal level; in thick black/red lines we've got the FF level; in thicker blue/pink we've got the TF level and in even more thicker brown we've got the SF level.
Each fractal level has its gaussians volume sequences associated.

All this is very simple an simplified cause it only makes appear Set C's. Understading the difference between the different Set of trends helped me a lot to understand what "jumping fractal" means...I think.

As an example, let's take a TS level of fractal which is the FFF level. At this level of resolution and on the 5min, sometimes a unique bar has at the same time one turn and IS one completed trend. Not complete trend, completed trend.

Here follows how I see now the "you must have two opposite tapes to see a FF" :
View attachment 203467

As @Simples has stated, the volume measurements are for the trading fractal. Your use of RDBMS terms to annotate turns on different fractal dimensions has limited usefulness. I appreciate the thoroughness of your DD but only the TF turns are defined in RDBMS.


F)
All fractals interlock. On any timeframe we can observe at least three interlocking fractals. The 5min timeframe places the TF in between th FF and the SF. It is on the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made.

If I understand correctly this, then by using this once again

View attachment 203462

, then I can see :

1- At the TS = FFF level POV, each TS is has begun and ends with a given turn.
2- At the FF level POV, each FF begins and ends with a C-turn
3- At the TF level POV, each TF begins and ends with a C-turn
4- At the SF level POV, it begins and ends with a C-turn.

5- so if starting from the FF level, each fractal level ends and begins with a C-turn.

6- The 5min timeframe places the TF in between th FF and the SF. So, we monitor and watch all those three different fractal levels POV from a single 5min timeframe.

7- It is on the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made. So, I understand we need the TF and its upper enveloppe (SF) and its lower enveloppe (FF) to make to C-turn to C-turn reversals. It is from the TF we make the reversals.

A bit of DD now :
- a PC and its related volume bars will give a context in which to operate.
- a single bar or a PC creates a trend segment
- the trend segment begins with a P1. All trend begins with C-turn, whereas TS begin with either C, A or B turn.
- a trend segment can either be made of a single bar or several
- if a trend segment is extinguished, more and more volume elements are labelled So the trend progresses forwards, so it has not ended, so the OOE continues
- when the TS ends, there is an EE.
- if this EE is a C-turn EE, we have four possibilities :
the EE that initiated that TS that just ended was a C-turn : so this TS was a Trend (A)
OR
the EE was a first A-turn : so this TS that just ended was the second and last move of a trend B
OR
the EE was a first B-turn : so this TS that just ended was the third and last move of a trend C
OR
the EE was a second B-turn : so this TS that just ended was the fifth and last move of a trend D.

It is on the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made. This sounds in my mind like : on the "illustration" attached, one is to
- open at the leftmost pt1's starting the first TS AND the first FF AND the first TF AND the SF
- hold until pink pt2 of the second TF occurs, which coincides with pt2 of the SF. And at this moment, one is to reverse and hold until
- reverse when pt3 of the SF appears.
And so on

If the last paragraph is true, then :

To solve the issue I have with the use of the MT/MR, I must find first what is the useness of the MR.
It took me a bit to even notice in the MR name, the word reversal was there.

A quiz that gave me a little Aha :
Which turn is on the EE that presents itself at pt2 of the first long blue TF ?
-> it depends.
If viewed from the FF, it's a C-turn and a Set C has just ended.
If viewed from the TF, it's an A-turn and a Set B has just begun.
If viewed from the SF, there is no turn.

We are to open at C-turn, hold on through A-turn, maybe re-enter at B-turn and reverse at C-turn. At A-turn, a retrace begins. At B-turn, the dominance is back. At C-turn, a reversal is coming and we do reverse.
It is on the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made.

Which turn is on the EE that presents itself at pt2 of the first long blue TF, when viewed from the TF POV level ?
-> A (nD-D). What do we do at A-turn ? We hold cause a retrace is coming.

So, one is to find a reason why not to reverse at this point, although there's a C-turn on the FF. But -> It is on the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made.

G)
The MR deals with reversals, as its name shows.
So, as deep as I can think about all this, I just understand I have a result in advance (for this example) that I am to see the MR to give me.

Example : some days ago, Liverpool won the Champions League by 2-0. Today, we know that.
If one only knows the final score but did not see the match in real time, and begins today to watch the math in replay. At 42', Tottenham is making a nice job and the ball is between the feet of their striker, who's getting himself at 10meters of the cage. The goalkeeper seems not in good situation to avoid the goal. We pause the video, and aswer the watcher :
- is Tottenham gonna strike ?
-> either no, or yes but the referee wil declare the goal is not accepted for this or that reason.
Even though all could make believe the striker is gonna score, what matters is that its goal will be invalidated.

So -> I see a C-turn at pt2 of the first long blue TF if viewed from the FF level POV. I DD that although the MT is saying reverse, the MR must be there to invalidate the MT signal.

Like in the example of Liverpool-Tottenham, I know the answer in advance, but the difference is that I can't for the now understand how the MR will lead to invalidate the prior information given by the MT.
Like I don't know the path, but I know where I'm to end.
I'll try this way.

NB : Until now, my understandings made me deduce and believe that when mastering RDBMS, one is able to take advantage of every C-turn from the FF. So on the illustration, I thought at pt2 of the first long blue TF, a first opportunity to reverse was there.
I'm not confident the recent DDs I made are good. Nor if they will lead me to the final AHA. But I can tell right now I feel at the same time at the most close I've ever been in my journey from the great AHA, and as far away from it than yesterday.

The three fractals are interlocking and one can take that fractal understanding and apply it to different timescales, this is true.

While it is possible, when liquidity exists, for one to have multiple trades per bar or to trade in the manner you describe, it's a bit intense and requires a lot of focus and concentration. At least for me. Whether one chooses to trade in this manner is a matter of preference. Engaging in MADA and coming to a functional comprehension of JHM gives one the facility, skill and the option to do so or to be more relaxed.


I've mentioned this before and it is worthy of repetition. Editing and printing out paper copy of threads and attachments is very supportive of the process. Jack in his replies most always included the quoted post if they had any relevant content to offer.

Also making copies of charts, chart logs and trading logs all indexed and cross-referenced to concepts and posts builds a web of associations that make quick work of working through concepts as differentiation increases. When first going over his writings only certain things can be perceived, it is only with later distinctions, practice with annotations/logging that other things can be perceived when going over the same material. In a way it's like archeology and having to dig through strata to get to other strata.

Like anchoring a string at the mouth of a cave to facilitate backtracking when exploring the depths, the string can also function at forks to explore different subsections; similarly like in hiking and the making trail markers. Having two copies of the attachments is supportive, one cataloged contextually with the thread and another cataloged via date in a Jack only chart binder - all with indexed and referenced source posts. Collecting his student's logs as well as his trading logs are key. There will be inconsistencies in that many of the student logs were not debriefed and one (as differentiation increases) see where a particular artifact of a student's work was in their own process of differentiation.
Logging his/students charts that have no corresponding log is good practice and also reveals where there are gaps in one's knowledge and differentiation.

At some point, 'you'll know that you know' certain distinctions as true whether the chart or log affirms it or not.


Also, having a living glossary - each entry with references to threads/posts also continues the 'building the mind' process.

Every single annotation on his charts is knowable, from the colored rays, to bar letters, to colored blobs to shaded boxes, to all the annotations on the volume pane. At some point you'll understand why he was so gracious with his time as well as why everything isn't completely spelled out for deduction is a necessary part of the process. If one is looking for all the answers outside of themselves, imho, that path will lead to a deadend. For if there is something that is known for certain with JHM it is that the process itself builds trust within oneself and their relationship to the market. However, that is something that does require work and not anything that can be given to another.

You are well on your way.


It took me two days to achieve to complete, write and organize this post.

I
- apologize for my absence
- apologize for its length
- hope you're doing great in what you do


To be continued...

Great writeup. You've come so far! You can certainly feel satisfaction for the level of comprehension you have attained. Comments within quoted text.

I'm not sure what you would be apologizing for, you are under no obligation. Your due diligence is inspiring!

 

[WchPl]

Great writeup. You've come so far! You can certainly feel satisfaction for the level of comprehension you have attained. Comments within quoted text.

I'm not sure what you would be apologizing for, you are under no obligation. Your due diligence is inspiring!

Thank you very much for your kind words and comments @Sprout . I deeply hope all is still working out for you.

As for the sentiment of satisfaction I could feel, it will be concretely here when the result of my comprehension lead me to change my life more than it's already doing. Currently as I'm working, I feel a lot of satisfaction for being able to develop, compile, combine and think deeply about all this becaue all this is related to the most important thing in my life. I won't develop it here. Anyway, yes I feel satisfied but most of all because I have demonstrated to myself such a tenacity, stamina, strength and self-sacrifice/confidence that I've had already felt that was in me since the beginning, but I had never had the opportunity to let me reveal it concretely to myself. I'm doing it now and this is really fullfilling.
AND
What I'm searching for now is the satisfaction of being able to extract the full offer of the market each and every day. I don't know when this will come. Maybe soon.

For my apologize : as you'll remember, one day a moment came when you told me that you were not gonna be answer me nor help me more until I'd begin a public Journal. I did begin that Journal, we're filling it currently. Plus, you said my work could be a light for some workers actively searching and working in silent on the same stuff.
So if I did apologize, it was because even though you say I'm not under any obligation, you put me one day under the obligation to begin something public if I wanted you to keep on contribuing to my path. So each time I'm kind of absent, in other words each time at least 2 or 3 days pass whithout me posting anything, I consider that is not a fault, but I just consider I could do better.

AND

My apologize about the length was because after rereading it once posted I thought it would have been better to sequence it and post it in several messages. BUT, now I think it's better to have done the way I did cause it's a unique block where one can find manythings not scattered. So my apologize for this detail is not at hand anymore ^^

You may know me more than a bit now. You said in the past I'm a bit of perfectionnist, so as anyone who is, I'm tough with myself. I'm sure you got me

Studying your answers currently. YOU are also inspiring to me.

Thanks a lot one more time.

 

[Simples]

It seems lengthy posts encourage lengthy replies!

Something I might want to explore is relationships of possibilities, of WMCN, and turning WTF into the WWT part. Why do I say this? If the system is complete, there is no WTF, thus no WWT? But granularity of markets are sometimes finer than caught by current finite rules. Imagine or try boolean rules on arbitrary even continuously different tf scales, leading to signal variance exposing the granularity of boolean expressions. Even if no need for mtf, there may be need for WWT, in addition to the three failsafes (BM's + Retro). Maybe for extremely liquid instruments with indexes as underlying this is less of a "problem", or just sync n' forget. However for stocks and less liquidity, PA are sometimes even more counter intuitive no matter what, even with quite a bit of trading activity. Though, some of these "moves" and gaps could also be fundamental sometimes. Ironically, WWT eases WMCN when regarded through the lenses of deduction.

So even though there may be no noise or flaws, at one time, Jack did deal with flaws, and any ATS need to deal with granularity beneath certain thresholds, plus there are fundamental and data quality reasons also to be dealt with. Unavoidably, sometimes there just may come BM Rev's after BM Rev's and gaps behind BM's . This seems more exposed in RDBMS due to the finer resolution and anticipatory nature.

Maybe MT and MR resolves this beyond IF/APA, though I suspect the above might need some dealings with beforehand.

And, @WchPl, if anybody were worthy of your writeups, they have already answered by now, for now. No need to feel obligated. Feed freedom.

 

[WchPl]

I need a rest of some days concerning my work on MT/MR/Turns/Trends.

I will for 1, 2 or 3 days do some logs and refine my ability to perform VTP, while doing parallely a deeper work into the EEs and its mindmap. I put this thing aside since I began with the MT/MR, and sooner or later I'd have to have it complete. Today it is not, so back to the last known good. I need to redo something I understand and refine it, then I'll come back to my work on the MT/MR/Turns/Trends. I feel the DD will come soon as for :

- when in a Set A, when an absence of C-turn comes for that the n EE is not in the right list, then an A-turn is there BUT it is still part of an Set A although there is NO A-turn into a Set A; one is to test the MR before advancing towards Set B.

- the volume measurement is for the TF, and it's from the TF that the C-turn to C-turn reversals are made.

I'm stuck on this. I don't want to force it too many days in a row on it, the last time I did this kind of thing I finally had to spend one week away from the work, and I don't like this, it's nothing good.

So, back to a last known good, let's refine it, I'll review my EE catalog, perform some logs and charts annotations with all I know. Plus, it will give me the opportunity to talk about/expose something I have in mind since a bit, and that I didn't mention yet.
I need to refind some confidence and some will to face something hard.
For me, understanding the two above points mentionned is cruelly hard.

Posting soon

 

[WchPl]

Plus, it will give me the opportunity to talk about/expose something I have in mind since a bit, and that I didn't mention yet.

Rethinking about it, correct me @Simples if I'm wrong, but I feel pretty sure about that you were the one who talked about this to me already.

Here is a thing :

Bar 1 : EE, beginning of a long trend, BM long.
Bar 2 : XB, a tape is built
bar 3 : XB, the tape extinguishes and that second tape built for the appearance of the third bar shows acceleration.
Bar 4 : XB and :
-> if we consider the rtl that is at had is the LAST TAPE'S, there is a BO,T1.
-> if we consider the rtl that is at hand is the FIRST TAPE'S that includes bar 4, there is NO BO,T1.

Since I began the be able to fill the log at let's say 80%, I noticed that I arbitrary felt the convention was to consider the LAST ESTABLISHED TL, so to speak in this example I'd see a BO,T1.
Why do I see the thing this way ? Back to the basics

There are two ways of taping this. One way will make appear more info contained into the bars than the other one.
As :

Less info if done this way More if that way

I almost always tape the "more info" way.
In the same vein, I feel like not seeing a BO,T1 on the first example I provided would be loosing from info that is coming sooner that when monitoring the action considering the first tl established although its includes the second one.

This can change many things because all my recent work and attempts to DD on the MT/MR led me to that :

I already posted this. It's the "one tape converting itself into a FF".

I arrive at the same result here :

If there is a BO,T1 at bar 4 AND there is a BM,rev at bar 5, then I begin to think there is already a FF created although the litterature states we need three moves so three FFFs to get one FF.
If there is BO,T1, then there is an EE. If there is an EE, then the TS is over. If the TS is over and there is an EE, then there is a Turn. If there is a turn, an opposite trend is beginning. On this example, the opposite trend was short and lasted for one bar. Then there is another EE, which is BM,rev. If there is BM, rev there is an EE so a new opposite trend is coming up. If a new trend is coming up, we're having a third one. We've had then three moves : long/short/long. BUT, we've not had the archetypal pattern described by three contradictory tapes lading to a first FF. I wonder then, here, if when bar 5 comes, there is a FF as exposed in thick blue line or not.
It's like talking about the the deep and the form. In the deep, yes there are three moves; in the form, there is just one. I'm currently wondering is we need :
-the form and the deep to align to state there is a FF here
-the deep only matters no matter what forms says.

Although I'm unsure for now, I'd rather say by DD that the deep only counts. Why would I tend to say that ?
Cause in the following, although we do have the form saying 3 times (3 XR's) the trend is short, there is never any EE neither on price nor on volume. So I'd say although we have the contradictory tapes here, we only have one extended tape and NO FF... this would change many things when building the interlocking fractals dimensions and this is linked to the MT/MR also, which is my sticking point.

So for now I DD the deep takes precedence.

I'll now do a log/chart and post it, taping and labeling fractals in this way and see where I come to.

 

[WchPl]

I'll now do a log/chart and post it, taping and labeling fractals in this way and see where I come to

MADA w/o carryover, turns/trend Sets o 06/05/19 & Logs

I notice there are a lot of things that, even when I'm ok with the MT/MR, are still not clear.

 

[Simples]

Rethinking about it, correct me @Simples if I'm wrong, but I feel pretty sure about that you were the one who talked about this to me already.

Here is a thing :

View attachment 203658

Bar 1 : EE, beginning of a long trend, BM long.
Bar 2 : XB, a tape is built
bar 3 : XB, the tape extinguishes and that second tape built for the appearance of the third bar shows acceleration.
Bar 4 : XB and :
-> if we consider the rtl that is at had is the LAST TAPE'S, there is a BO,T1.
-> if we consider the rtl that is at hand is the FIRST TAPE'S that includes bar 4, there is NO BO,T1.

Since I began the be able to fill the log at let's say 80%, I noticed that I arbitrary felt the convention was to consider the LAST ESTABLISHED TL, so to speak in this example I'd see a BO,T1.
Why do I see the thing this way ? Back to the basics

View attachment 203660 There are two ways of taping this. One way will make appear more info contained into the bars than the other one.
As :

Less info if done this way More if that way
View attachment 203662 View attachment 203663


I almost always tape the "more info" way.
In the same vein, I feel like not seeing a BO,T1 on the first example I provided would be loosing from info that is coming sooner that when monitoring the action considering the first tl established although its includes the second one.

This can change many things because all my recent work and attempts to DD on the MT/MR led me to that :

View attachment 203666

I already posted this. It's the "one tape converting itself into a FF".

I arrive at the same result here :
View attachment 203668

If there is a BO,T1 at bar 4 AND there is a BM,rev at bar 5, then I begin to think there is already a FF created although the litterature states we need three moves so three FFFs to get one FF.
If there is BO,T1, then there is an EE. If there is an EE, then the TS is over. If the TS is over and there is an EE, then there is a Turn. If there is a turn, an opposite trend is beginning. On this example, the opposite trend was short and lasted for one bar. Then there is another EE, which is BM,rev. If there is BM, rev there is an EE so a new opposite trend is coming up. If a new trend is coming up, we're having a third one. We've had then three moves : long/short/long. BUT, we've not had the archetypal pattern described by three contradictory tapes lading to a first FF. I wonder then, here, if when bar 5 comes, there is a FF as exposed in thick blue line or not.
It's like talking about the the deep and the form. In the deep, yes there are three moves; in the form, there is just one. I'm currently wondering is we need :
-the form and the deep to align to state there is a FF here
-the deep only matters no matter what forms says.

Although I'm unsure for now, I'd rather say by DD that the deep only counts. Why would I tend to say that ?
Cause in the following, although we do have the form saying 3 times (3 XR's) the trend is short, there is never any EE neither on price nor on volume. So I'd say although we have the contradictory tapes here, we only have one extended tape and NO FF... this would change many things when building the interlocking fractals dimensions and this is linked to the MT/MR also, which is my sticking point.

View attachment 203669

So for now I DD the deep takes precedence.

I'll now do a log/chart and post it, taping and labeling fractals in this way and see where I come to.

From my STM and keeping in mind my posts are suggestive for research and validation: RDBMS is bar by bar. At some point there for various reasons, maybe a first bar, a P1 is ass. BM and RTL also immediate. However, RTL need validation, BM remain active until trend end. What are the rules for creating and extinguishing RTL? So BM is on very same bar, RTL probably deploys in earliest forthcoming bar. Alas one and only one bar not enough for RTL, RTL is kept for some bars. P1 ass. kickstarts volume OOE. BM+RTL is part of PA OOE. What are the rules to sync PV OOE? Established TL develops during trend, accordingly to P1 ass. bar. So you keep parallellogram until removed. So what can be done with that very same parallellogram, there are 3 main altercations, with rules accordingly. Ie. Fanning happens on ______ volume and ________ bar. BM+RTL is kept for FS. When are FS active?

Btw, not saying this must resolve MT/MR. Consulting MR for MT is interesting point, though also keep in mind MR is yet incompleted. The above is different from your current operating point, which I believe contains alot of in-depth SCT than RDBMS (BBT, tapes, or even goats for some). I believe RDBMS may be in a way simpler (though not easier) than keeping track of all that, but also is not as "pretty" as when longer periods of PA are curve fit.