Log 1 debriefed : ommision occured on bar 10.
Part 2
Retro on Lat4 was not in the shadow so no measurement backwards was to be made. Here is the resulting cascading effect :
Making JH' SCT and all his material alive
- Thread starter WchPl
- Start date
Log 1 debriefed : ommision occured on bar 10.
Retro on Lat4 was not in the shadow so no measurement backwards was to be made. Here is the resulting cascading effect :
Part 5
Last P1 on last bar was not labelled.
That's all, after debrief, that I've been able to revisit and ID as necessary re-ID's.
On next log, which is what I'm right now about to do, I'll incorporate my understanding of special case of bar 78.
Great EE's Matrix still growing. This is the most "build your mind" exercise/practice I've ever performed. As previsouly said, I'll soon expose some tricky cases, although in-between I've already come to some resolutions that I think do fit with the logic and all the definitions of the items.
Attachments
As I want to change the order of my routine exercises, I firstly post the new annotated chart I've done today. It's on 08/14/19 cause my datas from 08/07 to 08/12 are no longer available. I need to rush it a bit more.
Upcoming is yesterday's debrief, and more work on the EE's Matrix. If there's some time left, I'll do the EE's references with JH's (and students') posted charts, although the Matrix I'm building and the log I do are already taking me a lot of time AND teach me about EE's already very well.
Full MADA on 08/14/19 Chart & Logs
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5 .
NB : Bar 78 and next ones until the ends have been quite tricky ^^ did my best. Although I still undertand the logic I've seen on this case, I'd maybe change my opinion. Cause as said in the Ah matricial description (A-band sheet), the first P1 replaces T1. So if the first P1 takes the place of P1, then any bar below would be if a P2 surged, an Ab. And P2 surged because of the process of bar 78. I still see the trickyness cause on bar 78 there's a P1 ass due to a BM,rev. My way of following the logic has been to say : P1 is ass AND you must advance one peak. So bar 78 is like P1 AND P2...and there is no T1. So I logged like all what deals with T1 value was not to be considered anymore. So that, next come T2P and T2F's.
But now, as I'm already debriefing it, I see it may be wrong. The real debrief will tell me a bit more surely.
Upcoming is yesterday's debrief, and more work on the EE's Matrix. If there's some time left, I'll do the EE's references with JH's (and students') posted charts, although the Matrix I'm building and the log I do are already taking me a lot of time AND teach me about EE's already very well.
Full MADA on 08/14/19 Chart & Logs
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5 .
NB : Bar 78 and next ones until the ends have been quite tricky ^^ did my best. Although I still undertand the logic I've seen on this case, I'd maybe change my opinion. Cause as said in the Ah matricial description (A-band sheet), the first P1 replaces T1. So if the first P1 takes the place of P1, then any bar below would be if a P2 surged, an Ab. And P2 surged because of the process of bar 78. I still see the trickyness cause on bar 78 there's a P1 ass due to a BM,rev. My way of following the logic has been to say : P1 is ass AND you must advance one peak. So bar 78 is like P1 AND P2...and there is no T1. So I logged like all what deals with T1 value was not to be considered anymore. So that, next come T2P and T2F's.
But now, as I'm already debriefing it, I see it may be wrong. The real debrief will tell me a bit more surely.
Attachments
Some thoughts and DD's
As everything, this needs a preamble. I am going to develop some thoughts that deal with the fundamental difference between the absolute knowledge and knowing everything. There's a massive and radical difference between the two, and here resides something crucial that I'm gonna attempt to expose, develop, with the goal of, at the end of this path, arrive to a useful and powerful conclusion.
Some months ago, I was making it all to avoid doing Logs. Logging afraided me a lot, because of a lack of understandings of the pre-reqs for doing so. Meanwhile, I was then working hardly on something else that has already provided some rewards but, of course, not the ones anticipated at first, when doing them.
Precisely, I was building every possibility of surge of any combo of 2 PC's in a row mixing O/C ubication (so resulting sentiment also), presence of a BM on any bar at any H/L, number of legs on each bar, relative length of each bar's legs, possible surges of volume triads etc... every parameter was tried to be included in what I had called the Great Matrix. The base of it, what the 900' Matrix, which had been very useful. Then I had begun to develop from it adding parameters in order to draw (by hand) every scenario that could ever happen. There were just thousands and thousands. It took me a while and some @Sprout 's warnings to get the absurdity of what I was doing, absurdity relatively to what was the fundamental goal of building Matrixs.
Lastly, I''ve been doing the EE's Matrix. This is a way more powerful exercises, and it's useful. By the way, the more I build it, the more I feel I won't really need it when ended, simply because while doing/building/drawing it, it "prints" itself into my mind and LTM is growing.
But, even though I just said this exercise is much more useful, interesting and way less absurd than the Great Matrix I began in the past, something remains interesting to clarify.
There is the absolute knowledge, and there is knowing everything.
DD's
What is the absolute knowledge ? : it is com-prehend the whole. This deals with the heat
What is knowing everything ? : it is knowing every piece of the whole. This deals with the cold
What is left when from the whole you remove every pieces ? : their relation
SO
What is a Matrix ? : it is a static formalization of a dynamic relation linking a given sum of pieces together
In the context of the EE's Matrix, what are the pieces ? : they are each scenario of volume bars in a row (we take into a count that there are so few exceptions in the EE's that deals with price moves that we can have them in mind and, some of them are even embeddable into the matrix) leading to an EE.
In the context of the EE's Matrix, what is the relation ? : the relation is found in the A-band, B-through K bands sheets,the PP!s sheet and the Volume elements range sheet (VERS).
Does this mean that by knowing by heart thoses sheets, one knows the relations between every item ? - yes
Does this same thing mean one can ID on live any EE whithout hesitation ? - no
Why so ? - cause there's a difference between knowing and comprehend.
What is knowing ? - knowing is having NOW something in MIND
What is comprehend ? - comprehend is having something inside US. It is PUTTING inside of us
Where do those two ways go away from each other ? - when it's time to ACT
SO
What is our routine ? - MADA
If we had to choose between M, A, D and A that we could know for sure at any moment, which would we choose ? - of course, the second A, ACT.
So to act, one must comprehend
To comprehend, one must TAKE and PUT inside
Doe any piece exist whithout the others ? no
Can any P1 be if T1 does not exist ? no
Can T2P exist if P2 does not ? no
Can Fc be if T2F does not exist ? no
Can ANY PIECE exist if ANY of the others does not ? NO
Why so ? - because there is no thing that could ever exist if what it is not, doesn't exist.
THEN
What is the first rock of the building ? - the relation of beingness VS not beingness.
Which is the relation of beingness of ANY item (FS, EE, Volume element, PC etc) ? - it is its negative relation to its not beingness
So any item does exist because every other item can't.
SO
Which is the best and only way ot be able to ID any item ? - by knowing its relation to its beingness OR to its non beingness.
If an item, at a precise moment, has a positive relation to its beingness, it IS
If an item, at a precise moment, has a positive relation to its non beingness, it IS NOT
SO
If an item, at a precise moment, has a negative relation to its beingness, it IS NOT
If an item, at a precise moment, has a negative relation to its non beingness, it IS
BACK IN TIME
What is a Matrix ? : it is a static formalization of a dynamic relation linking a given sum of pieces together
What if one feeds a static relation with a dynamic relation ? - one knows
What if one feeds a dynamic relation with a dynamic relation ? - one comprehend
THEREFORE
I have come to the conclusion, logically, that building my EE's Matrix was, in itself, a good thing
AND
The approach I've had of it, was a bad thing.
Finally, to comprehend the relationship between any item and the others when one talks about EE's (in this case), one must TAKE and PUT inside of him/her the relation of positiveness/negativeness of the relation this item has with its own beingness/non beingness.
The relation of the relation, the relation inside the relation.
Welcome into dialectics.
So let's look at the EE's-ness with a dialectic POV.
What is to BE to get them all and be able to ID them instantaneously ? - one must be in a positive relation to the dialectic relationship between every item
What is to be DOne ? - not necessarily build the Matrix I have begun and almost ended cause this could not be anything else but knowing. Instead, let's comprehend and integrate the relation of every relation between any item. What is a P1 ? What is an Ag ? etc...
Then one can HAVE.
THUS
I'm changing my mind concerning this Matrix, but also concerning everything about the work.
Building the Matrix must now, more than anything, the result of the comprehension, not a "king size seat on which one can comfortably sit and deal with what happens without having to sweat even a drop". That would be the pure incarnation of the staticness.
Let's enter and LET ONESELF go into the move of the relations.
As everything, this needs a preamble. I am going to develop some thoughts that deal with the fundamental difference between the absolute knowledge and knowing everything. There's a massive and radical difference between the two, and here resides something crucial that I'm gonna attempt to expose, develop, with the goal of, at the end of this path, arrive to a useful and powerful conclusion.
Some months ago, I was making it all to avoid doing Logs. Logging afraided me a lot, because of a lack of understandings of the pre-reqs for doing so. Meanwhile, I was then working hardly on something else that has already provided some rewards but, of course, not the ones anticipated at first, when doing them.
Precisely, I was building every possibility of surge of any combo of 2 PC's in a row mixing O/C ubication (so resulting sentiment also), presence of a BM on any bar at any H/L, number of legs on each bar, relative length of each bar's legs, possible surges of volume triads etc... every parameter was tried to be included in what I had called the Great Matrix. The base of it, what the 900' Matrix, which had been very useful. Then I had begun to develop from it adding parameters in order to draw (by hand) every scenario that could ever happen. There were just thousands and thousands. It took me a while and some @Sprout 's warnings to get the absurdity of what I was doing, absurdity relatively to what was the fundamental goal of building Matrixs.
Lastly, I''ve been doing the EE's Matrix. This is a way more powerful exercises, and it's useful. By the way, the more I build it, the more I feel I won't really need it when ended, simply because while doing/building/drawing it, it "prints" itself into my mind and LTM is growing.
But, even though I just said this exercise is much more useful, interesting and way less absurd than the Great Matrix I began in the past, something remains interesting to clarify.
There is the absolute knowledge, and there is knowing everything.
DD's
What is the absolute knowledge ? : it is com-prehend the whole. This deals with the heat
What is knowing everything ? : it is knowing every piece of the whole. This deals with the cold
What is left when from the whole you remove every pieces ? : their relation
SO
What is a Matrix ? : it is a static formalization of a dynamic relation linking a given sum of pieces together
In the context of the EE's Matrix, what are the pieces ? : they are each scenario of volume bars in a row (we take into a count that there are so few exceptions in the EE's that deals with price moves that we can have them in mind and, some of them are even embeddable into the matrix) leading to an EE.
In the context of the EE's Matrix, what is the relation ? : the relation is found in the A-band, B-through K bands sheets,the PP!s sheet and the Volume elements range sheet (VERS).
Does this mean that by knowing by heart thoses sheets, one knows the relations between every item ? - yes
Does this same thing mean one can ID on live any EE whithout hesitation ? - no
Why so ? - cause there's a difference between knowing and comprehend.
What is knowing ? - knowing is having NOW something in MIND
What is comprehend ? - comprehend is having something inside US. It is PUTTING inside of us
Where do those two ways go away from each other ? - when it's time to ACT
SO
What is our routine ? - MADA
If we had to choose between M, A, D and A that we could know for sure at any moment, which would we choose ? - of course, the second A, ACT.
So to act, one must comprehend
To comprehend, one must TAKE and PUT inside
Doe any piece exist whithout the others ? no
Can any P1 be if T1 does not exist ? no
Can T2P exist if P2 does not ? no
Can Fc be if T2F does not exist ? no
Can ANY PIECE exist if ANY of the others does not ? NO
Why so ? - because there is no thing that could ever exist if what it is not, doesn't exist.
THEN
What is the first rock of the building ? - the relation of beingness VS not beingness.
Which is the relation of beingness of ANY item (FS, EE, Volume element, PC etc) ? - it is its negative relation to its not beingness
So any item does exist because every other item can't.
SO
Which is the best and only way ot be able to ID any item ? - by knowing its relation to its beingness OR to its non beingness.
If an item, at a precise moment, has a positive relation to its beingness, it IS
If an item, at a precise moment, has a positive relation to its non beingness, it IS NOT
SO
If an item, at a precise moment, has a negative relation to its beingness, it IS NOT
If an item, at a precise moment, has a negative relation to its non beingness, it IS
BACK IN TIME
What is a Matrix ? : it is a static formalization of a dynamic relation linking a given sum of pieces together
What if one feeds a static relation with a dynamic relation ? - one knows
What if one feeds a dynamic relation with a dynamic relation ? - one comprehend
THEREFORE
I have come to the conclusion, logically, that building my EE's Matrix was, in itself, a good thing
AND
The approach I've had of it, was a bad thing.
Finally, to comprehend the relationship between any item and the others when one talks about EE's (in this case), one must TAKE and PUT inside of him/her the relation of positiveness/negativeness of the relation this item has with its own beingness/non beingness.
The relation of the relation, the relation inside the relation.
Welcome into dialectics.
So let's look at the EE's-ness with a dialectic POV.
What is to BE to get them all and be able to ID them instantaneously ? - one must be in a positive relation to the dialectic relationship between every item
What is to be DOne ? - not necessarily build the Matrix I have begun and almost ended cause this could not be anything else but knowing. Instead, let's comprehend and integrate the relation of every relation between any item. What is a P1 ? What is an Ag ? etc...
Then one can HAVE.
THUS
I'm changing my mind concerning this Matrix, but also concerning everything about the work.
Building the Matrix must now, more than anything, the result of the comprehension, not a "king size seat on which one can comfortably sit and deal with what happens without having to sweat even a drop". That would be the pure incarnation of the staticness.
Let's enter and LET ONESELF go into the move of the relations.
If you don't start annotating IN REAL-TIME, you will miss A LOT and become frustrated because the JH dynamics in static hindsight are not the same.
That's the last step, effectively.
And as I'm disciplined and trust @Sprout , I'm rigorously waiting for his signal to start what you mention, being as I know it's impressive how much we often miss the order of events, generically speaking. And this leads to skip steps, which produces even more frustration. I've experienced it in the past, and a lot. He told me to annotate in hindsight in order to be productive.
As I said, being disciplined, I wait carefully for his signal to switch and enter the real time annotations.
You're about 1/2 through the 20days to expert drill with ~10 days of MADA with RDBMS under your belt. This practice of getting the routine of annotating and logging will reveal itself when you start working with the HRE.
As you are drilling, there are places where you are still working with different operating points and seeing how the cascading of ID's effect different sequences. There will be refinements and they will be easier to assimilate due to having general pieces of the foundation in place. It's my interpretation that at this moment in time it's more productive for you to do the exercise of MADA without constant corrections. In your debriefs, you should be finding your errors and omissions and self-correcting them. Sometimes they are simple mistakes where you know the correct answer but other times require more research.
As you are aware, there are times when things flow and a feeling of certainty arises as well as when there's doubt which leads to researching through the reference material that you have been building, categorizing and indexing in a way that makes sense to you of the next piece to assimilate. The method has focus on building one's own self-confidence. You might also be at a point where you are unconsciously doing retro as each bar unfolds (as a subconscious process of checking your own work and seeing if other operating points would describe the current PV relationship better.)
As for publishing all your work, I'd suggest rethinking that idea. Although all the pieces were published, there was a reason why Jack did not explicitly piece everything together for it takes effort and due diligence for the student's of the work to come to their own realizations. With that said, everything that has been published from a student's pov are artifacts of their level of differentiation (including myself) at that moment in time. The method is open sourced with a natural tendency for constant iterative refinement.
Each step taken reveals the next.
Last edited:
I've just finished my debrief on this chart. At this moment of the time, I agree with all I've done, I've not come to any re-ID. Just an ommision of a BM, some OB's not drawn with translucid light blue disjoint-angle type channel, and I'm a bit stuck on bar 78 process in this scenario.
I've had a little doubt during debrief on bar 75 but I've remembered PP2 and PP3 are killed by internal but not in Lats, and the other one doubt I have had and that I cannot clear up for now deals with bar 71's PP1. Following JH's logic in Lats as for "do not start tl's into a Lat" and being as by retro of Lat4 we assign P1 on bar 68 due to prior PP5, I've had a doubt on either PP1 is true or not. The Add Req is fulfilled and there is acceleration on prce BUT...how to consider a tl ?.....if no tl can be begun from a bar inside a lat ?
Like for the BMrev assigned on penetration OR close beyond BM, I'm not clear on how to decide about this PP1.
With that said, I think the best would be to not ID a PP1 here because the answer to the question I just asked above, can only be, for me : you can't.
I suspect my unconscious to stop me IDing PP1s in Lat EXCEPT if the tl was begun BEFORE the Lat began.
Netx log for me then, right now.