Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

WchPl · Jun 14, 2019

WchPl said:
- refine last chart general ID's

Fail.

I'm struggling too hard to get it. I know why ; I have a big problem when OB comes. I have to work on this, it's creating too many issues as for VTP and log in general.

There are many scenarios in which there are cascading issues :

- when for a prior EE, P1 is assigned on next bar with this next bar being an OB w/ INC or DEC volume. Each scenarios (volume case) creates me fuzzyness.

- when a P1 is assigned for a current FS or A-band EE, and the bar in question is an OB, w/ INC or DEC volume.

Almost everything else is fine. As long as I don't face an OB, it's all right. Or close to. The only moment I don't have problem is when OB is part of a trend and is not on P1 assigned. So when there is only PP4, PP5 or PP5a as EE of the bar.
But when it's on P1 ass or when P1 is ass on next bar with that next bar being an OB, it makes all collapse in my mind, on my chart and log.

So I can't go forward cause I know I'm missing ID's or miss-IDing some items, which makes the following false as well.

Therefore, before going any further, I have no other option than working on OB to understand how it is logged in the precise examples mentionned. I know we already talked about this earlier, and now has come the time to work on it. I can't continue my log nor my turns/trends ID before that is clear.

I think I'm getting the hang of turns/trends quite good now (MT/MR). But as always, I'm stuck because of something before that need refinement. I really feel paralysed by the scenarios exposed above dealing with the presence of OB. Maybe it's an easy thing to unlock but for now, I see it as a complex wall to deconstruct.

So I don't know if I'lll be able to reach today's goals, but nevermind at least I know where to explore if I want to overcome this obstacle. I feel frustrated cause I really wanted to work on turns...

WchPl · Jun 14, 2019

WchPl said:
I have no other option than working on OB to understand how it is logged in the precise examples mentionned.

Ok let's go from scratch with OB's.

- What is a thing ? -> all it can be less what it cannot
- What is an OB -> a PC
- What can't OB be as PC ? -> XB, XR, SYM, StB, StR, FTP, FBP, Lat, Hitch
- What is the common point between all those last nine PC's ? -> bar 2's H/Ls are either 1 time higher/lower than bar 1's or 1/2 times equal OR both.
- Then what is an OB ? -> a PC with bar 2's H higher than prior one and L lower than prior one.
- What is, in our sys, a PC ? > a form/shape encapsulating the price path. made by two bars.
- What does a shape inform about -> the direction of the trend's slope.
- How many directions do exist ? -> 2
- Can these two directions happen at the same time -> they do can
- Which are they -> short and long
- Where is a short trend slope defined from ? -> H's
- Where is a long trend slope defined from ? -> L's
- What is/are the encountered trend(s) slope(s) when OB surges ? -> both, long and short.
- So in trend/slope/container/tape terms, what does an OB make appear ? -> the two opposite
- What to do when two things are simultaneously present and contradictory ? -> go with differenciation
- What is the possible differenciation one can use as for any PC ? -> bar's sent AND O/C.
- What are the possible cases of OB in terms of sents ?

- What are the possible cases of OB in terms of sents and O/C ?

- Rethinking about the 900's Matrix, which other differenciation wan we use for any given PC -> the independant variable
- What are the possible case of differenciation by volume of any of the possible surges of OB ?

- For each case, what is taking precedence ?

For now, the clear cases are those when INC volume (that shows dominance) is vertically aligned with the price bar having the sent matching with squished sent.

Red cells are for non congruent move of volume and global sent.

Let's see now what happens in terms of DD if we add BMs, prior rtl established and volume elements.

(lil break)
To be continued..

WchPl · Jun 14, 2019

WchPl said:
To be continued..

- in terms of BMs, which are the possible ubications ? - > H or L.
- In terms of any PC, which bar will we begin from, as for a BM ? -> the first one.
- what are the possible scenarios for an OB through thorough differenciation of O/C + vol with a BM at any place of bar 1 ?

(correction of volume sequence on cases 3 and 4)

- How many reasons can explain the presence of BM ? -> two
- Which are they ? -> either we have a BM because of P1ass or we have a (Rep)BM because of penetration by price bar of the BM with close being above (if BM long) / under (if BM short) of prior established BM.

Let's begin simple and state BM is here placed because of a P1ass.

Case 1 w/ long BM :

Case 2 w/ long BM : (yields RepBM)

Case 3 w/ long BM :

Case 3-a

This example makes me feel it's clearer. Still not clear, but clearer. At the moment I'm writting, I don't know if it's an illusion.
That's how I see it : there're two EE on bar 2 : BO,T1 and PP4. BO,T1 takes precedence and assigns P1 to the bar. And being as there's a PP4, next cell is P1ass. As we are on OB, I see in the upper row P1 and the same in the lower row.

Here resides the issue I have. It's hard to keep on being logic here. Maybe BO,T1 takes precedence so P1is assigned on upper row, then for the presence of OB, lower row receives T1 as true AND being as there's a PP4, P1 will be assigned on bar 3.
For now, I don't know. I'm doing all I can to unlock this.

Case 3-b

Here is the other way of seeing the thing.

For now no need to go forward with more cases, I have to solve the two priors being as it's here that all resides.

Sprout · Jun 14, 2019

WchPl said:
- in terms of BMs, which are the possible ubications ? - > H or L.
- In terms of any PC, which bar will we begin from, as for a BM ? -> the first one.
- what are the possible scenarios for an OB through thorough differenciation of O/C + vol with a BM at any place of bar 1 ?

(correction of volume sequence on cases 3 and 4)

View attachment 204216

- How many reasons can explain the presence of BM ? -> two
- Which are they ? -> either we have a BM because of P1ass or we have a (Rep)BM because of penetration by price bar of the BM with close being above (if BM long) / under (if BM short) of prior established BM.

Let's begin simple and state BM is here placed because of a P1ass.

Case 1 w/ long BM :
View attachment 204213

Case 2 w/ long BM : (yields RepBM)
View attachment 204214

Case 3 w/ long BM :

Case 3-a

View attachment 204219

This example makes me feel it's clearer. Still not clear, but clearer. At the moment I'm writting, I don't know if it's an illusion.
That's how I see it : there're two EE on bar 2 : BO,T1 and PP4. BO,T1 takes precedence and assigns P1 to the bar. And being as there's a PP4, next cell is P1ass. As we are on OB, I see in the upper row P1 and the same in the lower row.

Here resides the issue I have. It's hard to keep on being logic here. Maybe BO,T1 takes precedence so P1is assigned on upper row, then for the presence of OB, lower row receives T1 as true AND being as there's a PP4, P1 will be assigned on bar 3.
For now, I don't know. I'm doing all I can to unlock this.

Case 3-b
View attachment 204218

Here is the other way of seeing the thing.

For now no need to go forward with more cases, I have to solve the two priors being as it's here that all resides.

A BO,T1 requires a T1 to exist in the trend for it to be gated (permit).

The sentiment change of the turn exists on the EE’s not the P1 assigned. This is why it’s anticipatory as volume is the independent variable and the dependent variable of price is lagging. Visually, in annotating it doesn’t look like a turn via price annotations until a bar or a several bars later when in fact price goes toward the direction of the sentiment shift.

Having a doji extend from the previous bar supports seeing this sentiment shift before the OB’s bar’s actual close.

WchPl · Jun 14, 2019

Sprout said:
A BO,T1 requires a T1 to exist in the trend for it to be gated (permit).

This kind of oversight of extremely basic things do happen frequently to me when I incorporate something new.

Thank you. I keep in mind your "I encourage you to drop your shame"

Sprout · Jun 14, 2019

WchPl said:
This kind of oversight of extremely basic things do happen frequently to me when I incorporate something new.

Thank you. I keep in mind your "I encourage you to drop your shame"

It wasn’t an oversight. You did draw rtl’s at the HL and LH’s of price to support seeing the fastest fractal’s container construction. This is iterative refinement and how to back off or zoom out to add more comfort.

WchPl · Jun 14, 2019

There is some tricky thing for me about Case 3-a as :

It can be seen this way because T1 has not appeared before the OB surges, OR I can see a BO,T1 on this OB because there is T1 ON this OB.
I don't hear clearly yet what logic tells me here.

Edit : But instinctively, I'd say here, there is BO,T1 because of the presence of T1, although it is not before the break out, and although there's also a P2 on this bar.
For the fact that there is a P2 on this bar merged with T1, it reminds me the sequence when I had two unique T1's in a row, then surged a T1/P2 and there was a PP6. So, the T1 was like "absorbed " with the first two ones, and then kind of "separated" of the next P2. It kind of canceled from what I remember, the P2 and assigned P1 on lower row of the log.

So until I discover any reason why not to do so, i'll start with that

WchPl · Jun 14, 2019

WchPl said:
It can be seen this way because T1 has not appeared before the OB surges, OR I can see a BO,T1 on this OB because there is T1 ON this OB.
I don't hear clearly yet what logic tells me here.

Edit : But instinctively, I'd say here, there is BO,T1 because of the presence of T1, although it is not before the break out, and although there's also a P2 on this bar.
For the fact that there is a P2 on this bar merged with T1, it reminds me the sequence when I had two unique T1's in a row, then surged a T1/P2 and there was a PP6. So, the T1 was like "absorbed " with the first two ones, and then kind of "separated" of the next P2. It kind of canceled from what I remember, the P2 and assigned P1 on lower row of the log.

So until I discover any reason why not to do so, i'll start with that