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
Something that you are doing is putting more emphasis on price annotations a-la SCT when RDBMS is much more oriented to the sequence of volume measurements. RDBMS uses price as a tool for suppression or measurement of volume, if you are expecting to see tapes built like SCT to give insight into RDBMS, it would be easier to think of it more like an overlay of different complimentary methods. Price formations do not define the trends, volume sequences do.
Another thing is that in your examples you are not including the open. The doji is an important aspect of this work, it's the constant indicator of current and developing sentiment. It always matters for it reveals the dominant leg of the bar even though the price case form indicates continuation or change.
Something you can add to your charts is the 30m doji. This is similar to the BM but it is blue in color, starts at the open of the 30m and spans the 6 5m bars that a 30m bar includes. This will give one an idea of sentiment unfolding during the 5m as it relates to the 30m fractal.
With that said;
Bar2 - 1st tape
Bar3 - 2nd tape, acc with ftt
Bar4 - 3rd tape, fan with ftt, with form
Depending on what volume is doing with give you more clarity of BO,T1 or not.
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.
The "more info" way is the correct way on how drawing is done. A VE always expands the LTL. In this example you have not drawn an expanded channel LTL.
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.
If you look how channels are expanded in SCT you'll see where to add on to what you have. The dominant traverse you have annotated is just that - a dominant traverse of the larger channel.
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.
FFF is in the context of drawing the Fastest Fractal First. In bar-by-bar analysis sometimes Moves are contained within a single bar.
Trends can end in three ways:
1) By being incomplete and ending sooner than 3 moves.
2) By following a three move 'pattern'. Dom -> nonDom -> Dom ending at ftt.
3) By going into 'drift' where an odd number of moves extends 2)
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.
EE's with the exception of 2 are volume measurements. This is worth repeating, sometimes Moves can occur on and/or within a single bar. I know that in terms of your differentiation, drawing rtl of tapes is what you have been practicing. If you remember the context by which you started this was to start at the market's basic granularity. Think of it more as a drill than as THE WAY. As you progress, there will be times where a rtl cannot be drawn geometrically. As you progress you'll naturally come to a place where it makes sense why and where this occurs and when it does not. The key to this is exploring laterals on a deeper level and the function of "squishing".
RDBMS is a complete system and it is volume oriented.
Doing MADA and logging the VTP with turns and trends is the most important thing right now. With your current distinctions, there will be a lot of FS's logged. The intent is to get you to engage in the process. When it becomes second nature to log all the columns in the log, then in iterative refinement, you can see how to refine and back off ID'ing so many FS's to include how to make them longer volume sequences. To do so now becomes overwhelming and leads to paralysis. This is also why documenting your "operating points" are important. By logging via a variety of "operating points" one begins to create a flexibility of thinking. As long as one is consistent with exploring any particular "operating point", the process will subconsciously lead one to ask questions that will support in gaining greater insight and clarity and other "operating points" to explore.
View attachment 203669
From a taping POV, this series of bar's would have a short tape rtl from bar2-4 and 5-6.
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.
Comments within quoted text.
Last edited:
