Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

[WchPl]

ESU9-0828-5m-eod 1,2,3 of 3

Thank you for the sharing.

Then, let's play the 7 differences game.

- here on the INT, there is a consideration of a BO,T1. It is IDd on a non measurabe bar. This is then taking into a count statistically non significant value. If this is dissonant with my current level of understanding, differenciation, it means there can be a higher/deeper level one which can lead to consider a BO,T1 on a UL wait. Maybe this echoes to "anticipation" ? Don't know yet.

- next difference I notice is that there is no color blobs refering to MR table, but 2 colors for blob as black for longwards turns, and red for downwards turns.

- c-turns are in bold, so that it's more distinguishable from a and b ones.

- when a FS occurs both with a PP!, they are both annotated although FS takes precedence.

- on bar 75, BMrev seems to take precedence on Ah. Due to prior PP1a, P1 was to be ass'd next. If not BMrev I'd have IDd Ah but BM is there, it seems to take precedence and absorb Ah.

- the way PP1's are ID indicates clearly that price pane is NOT taken into a count as for IDing this particular PP!. Recently, while rereading litterature, I read about Ac HVBO : You have 3 P1's BUT they do not accelerate. This would confirm @tiddlywinks assertion on PP1 as for "PP1 does not involve price pane" AND this would invalidate my way of seeing it up to now. Although I don't see very logic the fact that the AddReq would not be bringing some ADDITIONAL requirement to the description, the way PP1's are here IDd leads me to say : I don't understand the way it has been described in the PP!s sheet, but ok PP1 does not involve price pane.

- some EE's receive an assigned P1 on them, so we must have one and unique BM, while others assign P1 on next bar. Up to now, it has been said to me to both put a BM on each EE AND on each P1 ass. This must lead for any EE being neither an A-band nor a FS one, to have two BM's. I can only see one BM each time there's an EE and when P1 is ass on next bar, it does not receive the second BM in question.

- I also notice as for BO,T1 : some weeks maybe months ago, I switched from a "non complete understanding of true BO,T1" to "true BO,T1 complete comprehension" AND from "true rtl" to "non true rtl" concepts. I can see now, on this chart that :
-> there are BO,T1's IDd after a P2 is IDd in the trend, which dissonates with my current understanding of all needed requirements for BO,T1
-> there are BO,T1's that break non-true rtl, like on bar 9:45am of this chart. I can understand here it may deal with anticipation AND being as that's what I had been doing for a huge while during the past.


- some EE's do not receive any color blob. Not even black nor red. At first, I assumed the whithout any-blob turns were the non-move reversals turns. ut when came OB 10:30 and b-turn surged due to prior a-turn into C-set trend on a BMrev, which is a move rev, I knew it was not the reason. I don't know yet.

- concerning OB's, I can see many of them crossed by prior rtl and not used to fan. The fanning on OB's was something I had seen in some of your charts in the past and I thought it was the correct way to do it, thus I have been doing it this way up to now.

- I notice, like on bar 8:30am that :
-> the BM rep is not placed
-> when it becomes possible to draw a short rtl (08:35am), it is not IDd although on next bar a BO,T1 is IDd.


- on some bars, BMrev is IDd when close is excedding it, sometimes just penetration by any leg of the bar seems to be a valid happening for BMrev. This is what I see on last bar where, even after degap I think the close of last bar would be on prior short BM.




There must be more, but at first sight that's what jumped to my eyes when seeing this chart.

 

[WchPl]

This snippet shows something great that deals with one of, maybe the, last things I had noticed during I believe, my 20th Session on 09/19/19.
Deals with Lats. Beyond the geometry rule as for the shadow of Lat1 that must include we know what, the Lat definition states when first (so before any possible retro triggered) IDd, the second and third bar of a Lat must not be measured. So, can't be measured.
On my last session, I talked about the fact that I had noticed during prior sessions I had IDd consecutive Lats in the same maneer as you did here AND about that in this case, I would see a Lat too.

But not in the following :

At my level of differenciation (LOD) : Leftmost bar is Lat4/1. Until Lat11, no close is outside of the Lat. Then Lat11 does have its close outside. Then next bar has its close inside so it is measured still as Lat has only been functionally BO's, not technically. So lat is not ended. Next bar continues to be in prior Lat. It is measured.
So I'm here in front of a case where, contrarily to what appears on this chart which has been made at a higher LOD than mine, I would have IDd the second Lat2 and Lat3 as Lat12 and Lat13.
In addition to that, when thinking about degap : at second Lat2 (what I'd have IDd as Lat12), the degap currently required is at -1 compared to the position of Lat1. So either in deep or in appearance, second Lat2 (my Lat12) has its close insode of the Lat.


- another remark on Lats : although JH clearly says (but maybe he does not only say this on this thema) no rtl should be drawn inside a Lat, I see on this chart every Lat receiving rtl inside of it, I mean, begun inside of it. I DD :
-> either JH added more differenciation which can lead one to draw rtl's inside a Lat
-> or I've misunderstood the real and whole meaning of what he said
-> or this chart is done at a higher LOD than JH's
-> or something else I can't imagine for now
At the moment, I'd opt for the first.

- I see the treatment of Bar 78 (just after the b-turn bar) different than the one I'd have had. Prior bar says BO,T1, then volume is INC. So P1 repeat, but we're on bar78 so special treatment : advance one peak, so P2 already. I thought this would suit to the Ah : P1 replaced T1 and P2 appeared before T1.
It looks like no.

- I see a rtl drawn between bar77 (b-turn bar) and next one, which can't be if on sticks to geometry but only if one uses the mentally seen position of the bar after degap. That's something I've never seen before.


- price bar 78 has its close below its open and it's black. Meanwhile, its corresponding volume bar red. Looks like volume color, here, follows relative position of close/open of price bar, while price bar color follows....prior price bar's close ?
Maybe it deals with this :

and this

- finally, I see somehting that I was waiting for, since it has been mentionned to me that it will be one of the next/remaining/final step to incoporate :

- I don't know what the first line of the infos in the upper left corner mean (text4 and arrows).





I will let this rest a bit, and continue EE's Matrix meanwhile.

 

[WchPl]

I will let this rest a bit, and continue EE's Matrix meanwhile.

EE's Matrix has grown.

Time to do a log.
The new things I can incorporate are the ones I am sure about AND that I understand why they are true.
But there are things that I don't get why they are true. I will not incorporate them yet.

What will be integrated will be : BO,T1 on non-true (so accelerated) rtl's, drawing rtl when the appearance of geometry does not let them exist BUT than can be drawn by using their degapped position, PP1 ignoring price pane action, BO,T1 on WAIT's, crossing OB's with tl's, draw rtl's into a lat being as JH says "it would not change a lot to not follow the rule that prevents tl's to be drawn into a Lat" AND being as it would certainly bring some more differenciation and precision, place a unique BM instead of 2, and to finish I guess I understand the thing concerning Lats in Lats therefore I'll be able to stop measuring bars after functional BO of the Lat.

All the remaining that I've mentionned, so for example BO,T1's after a P2 is there, non-drawn rtls when it's possible, non colored-blobs refering to MR table etc, will be left aside for now as I don't understand them.

 

[WchPl]

Time to do a log.
The new things I can incorporate are the ones I am sure about AND that I understand why they are true.
But there are things that I don't get why they are true. I will not incorporate them yet.

What will be integrated will be : BO,T1 on non-true (so accelerated) rtl's, drawing rtl when the appearance of geometry does not let them exist BUT than can be drawn by using their degapped position, PP1 ignoring price pane action, BO,T1 on WAIT's, crossing OB's with tl's, draw rtl's into a lat being as JH says "it would not change a lot to not follow the rule that prevents tl's to be drawn into a Lat" AND being as it would certainly bring some more differenciation and precision, place a unique BM instead of 2, and to finish I guess I understand the thing concerning Lats in Lats therefore I'll be able to stop measuring bars after functional BO of the Lat.

All the remaining that I've mentionned, so for example BO,T1's after a P2 is there, non-drawn rtls when it's possible, non colored-blobs refering to MR table etc, will be left aside for now as I don't understand them.

Debrief on 21th Session of MADA on 09/19/19 - 34 EE's IDd

It has been a bit destabilizing to need...1h12 to make this chart and log. I've remade it from scratch and tried to incorporate all the new I had in mind. I sincerly expected this work to take me at least 3 hours whereas usually it takes me 2h, but finally even though I've had to switch my mind when some things were coming up, it's like if my brain was already on the new track ready to go. Very very strange and impressive.

PARTS 1, 2, 3 and 4

PART 5

 

[tiddlywinks]

Some "pointers". Take em or leave em.

BO,T1's after a P2

FS can be applied to ANY bar. Attached is the hand-written FS sheet... * on ANY BAR

PP1 ignoring price pane action,

In the context of the previous discussion of the PP1... the price pane is not involved. More precisely however, the price pane is not involved with the determination of (PP1 and other applicable EE's) acceleration requirement. The acceleration requirement is solely volume-based. The normal testing procedure, which does consider the price pane, is applied as normal. In fact, the normal test procedure, which does consider the price pane, MUST be applied FIRST, in order to determine if additional requirements such as acceleration are even applicable!

RE: Lats...
Lats are tradeable or they are not. A Lat represents one (or more) sub-fractals, which is one reason ALL bars within a Lat are considered measurable and are indeed measured. A Lat is non-dom movement, geometrically point 2 to point 3. The longer the lat, in my experience, the easier it is to "see" the sub-fractal(s). As a sub fractal, which is not (usually) a trading fractal, rtl annotation is a personal choice. Lats are tradable or they are not. Also of personal preference is the tracking of nested lats and/or boundary extension. Jack wants people to think. The market is dynamic. JHM is "fixed". JHM gives order to the ever-changing dynamics. Thinking is not the same as creating inventions.

Side note: Check the "description" of BOT1 on the sheet... sub-fractal, hmmm. Note the words "If possible" as part of additional requirements. Lats and BOT1 have things in common.

 

[WchPl]

The acceleration requirement is solely volume-based. The normal testing procedure, which does consider the price pane, is applied as normal. In fact, the normal test procedure, which does consider the price pane, MUST be applied FIRST, in order to determine if additional requirements such as acceleration are even applicable!

And then it's clear. I maintain it has been exposed in the PP!sheet in a fuzzy way, it needed deep thinking.

Side note: Check the "description" of BOT1 on the sheet... sub-fractal, hmmm. Note the words "If possible" as part of additional requirements. Lats and BOT1 have things in common.

This clears up something I have been feeling for long. A BO,T1 will exist on the chart and log even though P2 is already there OR even though there is no T1 yet.
I was feeling this was related to fractals and sub ones. I feel I have the confirmation of it now.

So a BO,T1 will exist even though P2 is already there OR even though no T1 is yet here
AND
When I understand the dynamic of fractals in a deeper way that I currently do, so when my LOD increases, I'll be able to discern which of those BO,T1's are to be considered like "this" or like "that", w/ "this" and "that" relating to fractal levels.
Great !


@tiddlywinks , I give you thanks.


Time to log

 

[WchPl]

Time to log

22th Session of MADA on 09/20/19 - 35 EE's IDd

PARTS 1 and 2

PARTS 3, 4 and 5

I have not taken the time to explore bar 78's treatment yet. I dealt with it like any other one.

 

[WchPl]

22th Session of MADA on 09/20/19 - 35 EE's IDd

Except a couple of typos on Set trends, I've not found anything I could ID differently. Nonetheless, I corrected them and in order to begin to work on the comprehension of the subfractalness of BO,T1 I have IDd :
- in pink, the non true BO,T1's of True rtl
- in blue, the true BO,T1's of Non true rtl
- in green, the non true BO,T1s of Non true rtl
- in black, the true BO,T1's of True rtl

That's, graphically speaking, the first rock I'll be working from. Either it give information, or not. In any case, no info is info, info is info. Absence of something in a space lets space for something else to be.

EE's Matrix has grown again.

 

[WchPl]

23th Session of MADA on 09/23/19 - 37 EE's IDd.

NB : I notice the number of EE's grows as I've begun to stick to the recent refinements.

MADA on 09/23/19

PART 1

PARTS 2&3

PART 4

PART 5

 

[WchPl]

Debrief of 23th MADA Session on 09/23/19

A couple of non labelled volume elements, TF and SF trendlines not drawn, by the way the session ended by creating a new short SF, a misplaced Lat from beginning which led to extend it more than it was really existing, and a PP5a mistaken with PP5, only if bar 78 treatment is ok.


PART 1

PART 2-3

PART 5

Time to talk about some items, dark zones.

- on my MT version, on Routine part, Set A, there's a link from PP3 to "BMrev;BOT1". I've never managed to elucide if this means both FS must be there to get C-turn. I have seen in past logs that sometimes, whithout even noticing it, that I did not consider C-turn if not both FS's were there, sometimes I took it differently. Can be "either one or the other, but if the two are there then no C-turn". I have to think, search and explore somewhere to understand and fix that.

- still on MT, Set D, FS column, from BMrev we can have C-turn if n EE is BMrev... but "kill at n-1 BO,T1". At first, I thought this meant "but you kill the BMrev->BMrev linking if n-1 EE was BO,T1. After thinking a bit more : in this example, if starting to search for a link FROM BMrev, it means one solely one thing : n-1 EE is BMrev, so it can't be BO,T1. Currently I have not got this cleared up cause it never really hurt me not to understand. Time has come when it does.

- when both FS's happen on the same bar, as for MT use, I do like on an OB having both FS AND PP!. For instance, when BO,T1 and BMrev (of course BO always happen before BMrev) surge both, I search for a linking between n-1 EE and BO,T1. At this moment, I ignore BMrev. Then when new EE comes up, I consider n-1 EE as BMrev and ignore BO,T1.
I see it at the same time quite logic, but not satisfying. I feel like there's more logical and better to do. I don't know yet how to consider this and have to think about it.

- on MR table, I have never understood the *** cells. "If you have an "and" with FS's, not both becomes a "MR" ". At first I thought it was a complete sentence, like : if you have an "and" so BOTH FS's, then "not those two FS's" is a MR. Non-sense. I have left this aside from the beginning as it only concerns 2 cells of the MR but as we all know, we need completeness.

- tricky case (always means involves higher LOD to be unlocked) : a measurable bar receives P1. Price corresponding bar receives its BM on it. Next bar creates XB. A tl is drawn. Next bar makes the tl impossible to proceed (StR). Next bar is XB, allows to draw a new rtl with the new close of course, inside of it...but this close it out of first rtl that was drawn and that has been impossible to go on. Is there BO,T1 ? That's I wonder. As deep as I can think and DD from all I know now, is that no, there is no BO,T1. Just wanted to share.

If anyone has a direction, a zone towards where I can search for those answers, feel free to mention. But of course, no direct answer, make me save time please. Most of time, each directly given answer is a missed occasion to get better.



Time to log