Making JH' SCT and all his material alive
- Thread starter WchPl
- Start date
Try this...
You are using hindsight charts. You do not understand how real-time PRV and bar formation is MUCH different than hindsight (completed bars).
In this hindsight example there is no turn! In real-time, YOU would be churning. Death by 1000 cuts. In real-time, PRV would have very likely informed you there is no turn!
All that said... you are curvefitting, using FS wrongly, IMO.
Last edited:
I appreciate your comment and attempt to help. I give you thanks for that @tiddlywinks . I feel sincerly very happy that finally, oil and water can merge OR oil has converted itself into water OR water has converted itself into oil OR something else. But, again :
You are talking about real-time annotations. I know there are many differences with when annotating and logging in hindsight. I do know this. It's not the first time you mention this to me. I thank you again for this advice/warning.
But, It will be soon a 2 years path with @Sprout for me. He has been here for/with/supporting me from the beginning of the second half of my studying time. I started 5 years ago now.
I've not always followed his guidelines, advices etc. It was a lack of understanding, maturity and more from me to do so.
I'm not the same now.
I do orient the most I can via Be, Do, Have, do logs, annotates my chart, post them, do EE's Matrix, understand Bands and tones of things I did not understand last year when I started this Journal.
And I follow his directions, I do trust him when he says he knows I'm very close to be able to extract the full offer of the market, which has always been my only and unique goal in terms of skill.
With that said, what do I want to say : @Sprout has been clear to me : he is still waiting to see me accomplishing 20 days of MADA before adding more differenciation. It has been his answer when I was back from my 3 holidays weeks last summer, and that you said I have to begin to log and annotate in real time. This was some weeks ago.
When I asked him if I was ready = if it would not be counterproductive from my current LOD to start logging in real-time, he answered me I needed to end with the 20 days of MADA. At this moment in time, I had done 16 fully completed logs. By perfectionnism and will, I said let's drop those 16 logs, consider I've done none of them and they were training, and let's start 20 days of MADA from scratch.
I did them. And I did 14 more. His answer to that has been to post several annotated charts from his hand, on same sessions I had posted about.
This is the direction. Even though he did not "say" anything but just shared charts, I understand what is between the line is I have to compare, refine from his own charts.
That's what I've done, and am still doing.
Apart from that, he commented some of my posts later, and I have things to explore, more than anything, and this is also what YOU just point out : "the problematic way I use true/non true rtl's and true/non true BO,T1's". This echoes to my understanding of the fractal levels.
It's the core of all this.
That's why I am, today, building a huge corpus of texts from yours', Sprout's and Jack's posts talking about it. I've combined 23 pages in Word (police in 11) about the thing.
I am reading them, drawing things, stepping away some minutes from the work, going back to the work again, continuing to draw and read etc.
I know that's I have to do. So unless Sprout would confirm what you say when you warn me about that I need to start annotating in real-time, I'll continue to collect your post and build a corpus from you specifically for next steps waiting for me, but not log in real time.
In addition, I'm out of printed logs and could not print more since last friday anyway.
After 2 years?
After 5 years?
Still struggling. Still haven't annotated (forget taking a trade) in real-time.
You are water-logged. A little oil won't make you slick.
I don't care what Mommy Sprout thinks about it.
You've done the work. Some of it excellent I might add... BUT... You just don't get it!
Good luck in your endeavors.
Here is the pattern in its archetypal form. Let’s discuss this. The goal is to get the Aha as for fractal levels and use of FS’s.
- Remark 1 : turns are IDd at the end of eahc FF AND/BUT they announce/begin/initiate the next leg of the closest slower fractal containing each leg/FF. Turns are at the end of FF, they correspond to traverses of the TF. So, when a C-turn, it’s the beginning of a new dom traverse of a new TF, so it is the end of the non-dom traverse/leg3 of prior TF that just completed.
- Remark 2 : the only EE appearing here is BO,T1. It is IDd when a given bar forms a counter translation (so XR after XBs serie / XB after XRs serie) AND the corresponding tape/FF has its pt2 out of prior established rtl (FF rtl) AND volume is a T1. It’s a BO,T1. A BM is associated. I can see here a dissonant thing compared to my current LOD -> each EE receives a BM and gets either a P1 or assigns P1 on next bar. FS, among other EE’s, assign P1 on current bar. BO,T1 i s a FS. So it’s BO,T1 must receive a P1 and its associated BM. It is not the case here. The BMs are on BO,T1’s bar. If I assign P1 on each BO,T1 bar of this drawinf, each volume sequence will be P1ass-P1rep-T1-T1rep-P2, and finally P1ass due to BO,T1. And so on.
This also reminds me the « true BO,T1 » notion. At my current LOD, a True BO,T1 is a BO of prior established rtl with a T1 on this bar OR with a T1 already present in the trend BUT P2 must not be already on the trend AND the B’dO rtl must be the true one. I’d say then,
a) if there is BO of true rtl with T1 here and P2 not yet, there is true BO,T1
b) if there is BO of true rtl with no T1 or P2 already here, there is non true BO ,T1
c) if there is BO of non true rtl with T1 here and P2 not yet, there is non true BO,T1
d) if there is BO of non true rtl with no T1 or P2 already there, there is non non true BO,T1. « Non non true » is not « true », like « - x –« would be +. « Non non true » is rather like « non true » for 2 reasons.
- Remark 3 : all trends are complete. There are C type trend set : C-A-B-C. But we only have BO,T1s as EE. So if we ignore the first TF, and begin with the EE beginning the first leg of the second TF, we’d have c-turn completing A Trend Set. And ALL subsequent EEs being BO,T1s, would have us have only Sets A. No a nor b-turn would be here.
- Remark 4 : this drawing is simple. Only translations PC’s. Things become harder when introducing INT, Lats and OB’s. AND, things are easy here cause there is no fanning, just acceleration which deals with LTL (see leg 1 of short TF for example ).
I know that :
- We need three nested fractals to be operational
- The three fractal levels are the FF, the TF and the SF
- The FF is built from PC’s. They are tapes, extended tapes. It is the completion level
- The TF is the trading one
- The SF is the context one
- Sometimes, a FF is contained within a single bar. This leads to explore IBGS. OB matter here too
- When at a given fractal level, a trend is incomplete, the completion is observable at a faster fractal level within it.
- Turns are for the TF.
- When one gains knowledge and skills, one cant rade faster and faster fractal levels and one can « see » them.
- All fractal complete at any timeframe but to see it one must go beyond a single timeframe POV.
- All trends complete and all trends fail to continue to extend after completion.
- There are complete and incomplete trends
- When a given trend is incomplete, the completion has happened inside a faster fractal contained in it.
I feel I need to work with numbers on each assertion like this :
AND
I can feel when I’ll, finally, put all these pieces together and understand this paradigm and all its items, I’ll just laugh when rereading this post in the future. I really feel I’m so close. But…
Still not in.
Little break time.
To be continued
- Remark 1 : turns are IDd at the end of eahc FF AND/BUT they announce/begin/initiate the next leg of the closest slower fractal containing each leg/FF. Turns are at the end of FF, they correspond to traverses of the TF. So, when a C-turn, it’s the beginning of a new dom traverse of a new TF, so it is the end of the non-dom traverse/leg3 of prior TF that just completed.
- Remark 2 : the only EE appearing here is BO,T1. It is IDd when a given bar forms a counter translation (so XR after XBs serie / XB after XRs serie) AND the corresponding tape/FF has its pt2 out of prior established rtl (FF rtl) AND volume is a T1. It’s a BO,T1. A BM is associated. I can see here a dissonant thing compared to my current LOD -> each EE receives a BM and gets either a P1 or assigns P1 on next bar. FS, among other EE’s, assign P1 on current bar. BO,T1 i s a FS. So it’s BO,T1 must receive a P1 and its associated BM. It is not the case here. The BMs are on BO,T1’s bar. If I assign P1 on each BO,T1 bar of this drawinf, each volume sequence will be P1ass-P1rep-T1-T1rep-P2, and finally P1ass due to BO,T1. And so on.
This also reminds me the « true BO,T1 » notion. At my current LOD, a True BO,T1 is a BO of prior established rtl with a T1 on this bar OR with a T1 already present in the trend BUT P2 must not be already on the trend AND the B’dO rtl must be the true one. I’d say then,
a) if there is BO of true rtl with T1 here and P2 not yet, there is true BO,T1
b) if there is BO of true rtl with no T1 or P2 already here, there is non true BO ,T1
c) if there is BO of non true rtl with T1 here and P2 not yet, there is non true BO,T1
d) if there is BO of non true rtl with no T1 or P2 already there, there is non non true BO,T1. « Non non true » is not « true », like « - x –« would be +. « Non non true » is rather like « non true » for 2 reasons.
- Remark 3 : all trends are complete. There are C type trend set : C-A-B-C. But we only have BO,T1s as EE. So if we ignore the first TF, and begin with the EE beginning the first leg of the second TF, we’d have c-turn completing A Trend Set. And ALL subsequent EEs being BO,T1s, would have us have only Sets A. No a nor b-turn would be here.
- Remark 4 : this drawing is simple. Only translations PC’s. Things become harder when introducing INT, Lats and OB’s. AND, things are easy here cause there is no fanning, just acceleration which deals with LTL (see leg 1 of short TF for example ).
I know that :
- We need three nested fractals to be operational
- The three fractal levels are the FF, the TF and the SF
- The FF is built from PC’s. They are tapes, extended tapes. It is the completion level
- The TF is the trading one
- The SF is the context one
- Sometimes, a FF is contained within a single bar. This leads to explore IBGS. OB matter here too
- When at a given fractal level, a trend is incomplete, the completion is observable at a faster fractal level within it.
- Turns are for the TF.
- When one gains knowledge and skills, one cant rade faster and faster fractal levels and one can « see » them.
- All fractal complete at any timeframe but to see it one must go beyond a single timeframe POV.
- All trends complete and all trends fail to continue to extend after completion.
- There are complete and incomplete trends
- When a given trend is incomplete, the completion has happened inside a faster fractal contained in it.
I feel I need to work with numbers on each assertion like this :
AND
I can feel when I’ll, finally, put all these pieces together and understand this paradigm and all its items, I’ll just laugh when rereading this post in the future. I really feel I’m so close. But…
Still not in.
Little break time.
To be continued
Yes ! exactly, I know that.
So, with that said, am I wrong when I say you know that logging in real-time will give me what I need to get what I don't ?
hahahha, true !
Yes, you are wrong. True, people have different ways of learning. Logging is ONE TOOL. It is NOT a grail and MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU have shown it to be a learning tool, and NOT a grail FOR YOU! You've done 34 logs in this go around. You've learned! The 35th log is not an answer for everything you don't understand. Keep learning.
Perfectionism will prevent you from using, building on, and refining what you already know. I've mentioned that as well. The method is not perfect or infallible. FS (bot1 and bm) are perfect example... (F)ail-(S)afe exists to quickly fix judgement errors or when a "better defined" answer such as an EE does not exist or is not applicable for whatever reason. FS can be applied to ANY bar, measurable or not, at ANY place in a chart!! Fail-Safe! With FS as n-1, almost every EE at n is an MT turn. Why?
You need to move forward. JH says 20 days and you have enough knowledge to make money in the market. Is 20 days enough to make millions and billions and solve all of your financial concerns, including fixing the local problems in your location and the bigger problems in rest of the world? NO!... 21 days are needed for that.
Be. you are stuck here.
.... Have
A man can't turn tail and run just because a little personal risk is involved. What did Shakespeare say? 'Cowards die a thousand deaths, the brave man... only 500'?
