Making JH' SCT and all his material alive
- Thread starter WchPl
- Start date
Attachments
Last edited:
Full MADA on 07/01/19 & Log, part 2
Well...
I notice most of time, when on my logs the three arrows do line up, it leads to a loss.
There must be then, something I need to refine to arrive to something consistent.
I'll take a little break for now, and then I'll produce another post concerning all what gets me confused. I see now there's no reason to continue the MADA routine before exposing clearly the problems I see each time they happen.
I already posted something dealing with the problems remaining, I think they are not big ones, but I fel and see and notice they MUST be solved to provide clarity and consitency to the final 3 arrows.
Even though there are less and less scenarios in which I'm not sure, there remains some cases that deal with :
- degap
- squish
- a rtl can't be started in a Lat
- Lat
Finally, it's always one of those things thta bother me.
For now, right now as I'm writing this post, I don't see anything else. In my next post if I realize there is something more, I'll write about it.
So, little break-time, and I'll expose in my next post the most clearly as possible, what I wonder about, and try to go through some DDs.
See you later and best day to all of you !
Well...
I notice most of time, when on my logs the three arrows do line up, it leads to a loss.
There must be then, something I need to refine to arrive to something consistent.
I'll take a little break for now, and then I'll produce another post concerning all what gets me confused. I see now there's no reason to continue the MADA routine before exposing clearly the problems I see each time they happen.
I already posted something dealing with the problems remaining, I think they are not big ones, but I fel and see and notice they MUST be solved to provide clarity and consitency to the final 3 arrows.
Even though there are less and less scenarios in which I'm not sure, there remains some cases that deal with :
- degap
- squish
- a rtl can't be started in a Lat
- Lat
Finally, it's always one of those things thta bother me.
For now, right now as I'm writing this post, I don't see anything else. In my next post if I realize there is something more, I'll write about it.
So, little break-time, and I'll expose in my next post the most clearly as possible, what I wonder about, and try to go through some DDs.
See you later and best day to all of you !
Attachments
- on degap
Here is what Jack says about it :
What I understand here, and to me it is clear : when one degaps, one moves n-1 bar and ALL of this bar. What this "ALL" must mean ? I don't see how it could mean anything other than "all the information contained by bar n-1".
Then, in the following situation, if I applicates what I understand to this scenario :
... then bar 2 would be a BMrev.
To help myself with DD, I remember that when I posted this,
, the answer provided had been :
So, I can DD that it fits to my understanding of what Jack says. When one moves prior bar to make its close match next open, then one moves all of this given n-1 bar : can be a BM, the boundary of a LAT* etc.
SO, if one is to move all the info of the bar that is moved, let's take a scenario and deal also with the squish, and merge the two concepts :
It's a more complete and precise scenario of a snippet I have already posted recently.
Bar1 : at this moment we don't know anything about it.
Bar2 : no degap is required. We have a SYM.
Bar 3 : absolutely XB, relatively (degapped) we have XB.
Here begins the ride.
From what I understand, and the goal of this post is to either reconsider/be firmer with some beliefs and knowledges I have, we are to squish prior bar into Bar 1. One more time let's think about the squish. Cambridge dictionnary says : squish = the act or sound of crushing something that is soft.
Well.. in our case, when I think about squishing and look at any INT (being as it's INT's we're to squish), I understand that it means "imagine the second bar creating the INT is merged with the first one, and see what it gives".
Let's dissect
- if I squish a SYM, I'll automatically have the first bar left and nothing of the second bar will appear anymore.
- if I squish a FTP or a FBP, it will be the same as when a SYM is squished.
- if I squish a Hitch, same also
- if I squish a StB or a StB, I will this time have only the second bar remaining.
- If I squish a LAT, I'll have again only the first bar remaining.
During the two last MADA sessions, I was wondering : an INT is an INT. There are, in terms of action to operate when they happen, two kinds of INT : those allowing to measure volume, and those preventing to do so.
I wondered : is any of these two kinds of INT to be squished ?
If any INT is to be squished, it means any INT is to be squished...Wait or UL must not matter.
And later, along the MADA routine, as I was giving a glimpse at prior ID's, I noticed I had been inconsistent in that I had sometimes stopped squishing INT because of the presence of a UL INT, or because of the presence, in a LAT, of measured bar (no need here to say again when and why some Lat"x" are measured or not"). This happens when I'm unsure. Sometimes, th markets makes me think "I should see it this way because it fits better", other times it makes me think "no, rather this way". This is inconsistency. I...hate this !lol
Therefore, here is a first zone I want to clear up. Is any INT to be squished, even though it's a UL one.
Let's go deeper : if I squish bar 2 into bar 1, only bar 1 remains. When bar 3 comes, it is then to be, I assume, compared relatively to bar 1... BUT...bar 3 was to be degapped with bar 2. So, logically I'd say:
- there is no gap between bar 1 and 2, so close of bar 2 will remain, reltively to bar 3's open , at the same position.
- then, when bar 3 comes, it is to be degapped to the position of bar 2's close, itself being imagined inside bar 1 and being merged with it. Here, it does not change anything : I'd still have a SYM, whether I do degap or not.
BUT
It can change a lot in function of bar 3's form compared to bar 1's..
SO -> I wonder, in addition to prior wondering, if when squishing, the degap action is still to be done.
For example here :
When bar 2 comes, when one does degap, one obtains a FBP. After squished, Bar 1 only remains. When bar 3 comes, bar 2's close is now 2 ticks below, so the gap is twice the size of what it usually is.
Then, if one degaps bar 3 with bar 2, then by doing so, one will have bar 3's L 1 tick below bar 1's L AND one won't have a LAT anymore...
As I see it, it's very important and radically decisive to be clear with that.
All I can feel, DD and sense from what I take to be sure, and I'm referring here to @Sprout 's confirmation for my Lat's example when degap makes it all different or not, I would DD what I said in the very last snippet, is true. In other words, the attached "example" snippet, would make one not see a Lat.
Back to the first global example :
Bar 1 :
Bar 2 : degapped, relatively SYM, squished and only bar 1 will be taken into consideration when bar 3 comes
Bar 3 : degapped of 2 ticks downwards, relatively to bar 1 : SYM, squished and bar 1 only will be the reference.
Bar 4 : absolutely we have XR, relatively to bar 1, we have now to go 2 ticks downards cause bar 3 that originally has a 1-tick gap upwards, is now two ticks below, so the degap of bar 4 compared to the close of bar 3 being inside of bar 1 gives us : a SYM. Squished the, only Bar 1 remains and will be the reference.
Bar 5 : and here we are.
OH.... In the past, at this very moment I'm writing this sentence, I would just have done Ctrl+A, suppr.
I realize now in what i'm saying since the beginning of this post, that I'm not moving the n-1 bar, but the n bar for degap !....
Let's post this artefact and rewrite something exposing clearly and properly what I wanted to...
Let's begin again properly with that :
Bar 1
Bar 2 : when it comes, after degap and moving BAR N-1 (...lol), this is what we have :
Now Bar 2 is at its degapped position, and we make it appear by moving the Lat's boundaries.
Bar 3 : when it comes, the Lat moves again and this we have :
And so on...
Well it does not change a lot to what I wanted to expose at first, but it's better when things are done correctly and properly.
All this reminds me when I drew the chart with iterative multi-positions' Lat, and it had been told me it was the complicated way.
BUT, I'm still searching for the easy way that fits to :
So, as a synthesis what I wonder is :
- for squishing, when a Lat comes, when do we stop squishing and then when do we stop considering Lat1 as a reference.
- for degap, I think my problem is clear ^^^
- for squish and degap... clear issue too
Now, about Lat : lastly, @Simples told me a rtl can't be started in a Lat. What I DD as for FS's monitoring, is that we only consider BM's. I have seen recently on my chart, a scenario making appear an absence of drawable rtl, whereas a trend was established and progressing since a bit. Here it is :
On 12:15 Bar, a short trend begins. It's in the Lat so no rtl is drawn. At this moment I think : as soon as we're out of the Lat which happens at the second close outside of the boundaries of the Lat, let's draw a rtl if possible.
On Lat 8 (next bar), trend progresses, P1 repeat. First close out of the Lat, so we're still in.
On Lat 9, second close out of the Lat, we're not in the Lat anymore and from now we'll draw a rtl ASAP.
We can't see whats next on this chart, but I remember the next PC doesn't allow to draw any rtl.
Is this correct here ? There would be only one FS remaining and that could be "broken", which is Lat7's BM short ?
Another thing : relatively (=once degapped) to the absolute position of Lat8, the last bar of the chart is an XR. I put T1, although it's between two P1's. Why did I do so ? -> because there was a Lat8...and I wonder if Lat2, 3, 4... are considered INT. If they are, PP2 and PP3 are killed, but not PP6 (thank you @tiddlywinks ). So no PP3 here.
I'm not sure this is correct.
As you can see there are some details I need to understand in depth, and i'm sure it is what makes me, in the end, constate that when on my logs the three arrows line up, they most of time lead to nothing but losses. It can also be due to miss/bad ID's from me, and it's ok.
If you think I'm struggling with things that I should ignore for now, please feel free to say it.
Any comment will be appreciated.
Edit : I'll, finally, finish my log on 07/01/19 and try to give my best.
Reviewing this makes me notice I said something wrong in my prior post. PP6 is killed by INT even in Lat, PP2 and PP3 are killed by INT BUT not in a LAT.
This makes me needing to refine the T1 exposed in prior post that I had not seen as a PP3, and now I see it was a PP3. Let's refine
Well, it's too much now for today. I have to stop, I realize after the fact that one more time I have not been consistent as for squishing in a Lat. I must stop the work for today, I'm overwhelmed.
Here is where I stopped :
Attachments
You are mixing degap and no-degap methods.
There is a Lat or there is not a Lat... de-gapped there is NO LAT.
Lat boundaries do not shift. Lats once established, continue until they end. Depending on ones interest, purpose, or need to track nested lats or expanded lats (which is/are NOT in the example), boundaries are stationary for each particular Lat that has been established. By definition, a Lat is a non-dom sub-fractal. Sub-sub-fractals can also appear within Lats. Also by definition, Lats are not money-making formations. Volatility however may provide money-making opportunities within.
"Laterals are either tradable or not." ~ Jack Hershey ... post #948 in the butt thread.
Reminder: I intentionally choose not to degap. My reasons have been discussed elsewhere and my stance is not flexible.
There is a Lat or there is not a Lat... de-gapped there is NO LAT.
Lat boundaries do not shift. Lats once established, continue until they end. Depending on ones interest, purpose, or need to track nested lats or expanded lats (which is/are NOT in the example), boundaries are stationary for each particular Lat that has been established. By definition, a Lat is a non-dom sub-fractal. Sub-sub-fractals can also appear within Lats. Also by definition, Lats are not money-making formations. Volatility however may provide money-making opportunities within.
"Laterals are either tradable or not." ~ Jack Hershey ... post #948 in the butt thread.
Reminder: I intentionally choose not to degap. My reasons have been discussed elsewhere and my stance is not flexible.