From my LOD :
06 :30 : great, I get now what PP3a is. It was one one of the very last EE’s I still not managed.
When I adopted the view of Jack posting student works which also included notes, it allowed me to consider how someone might be writing things down to their own comprehension. This includes being incomplete, having errors, etc.
07 :25 : I see the rtl is not fanned. I wonder why. This leads to ID BO,T1 on next bar. By fanning like I’m used to being as I don’t see any reason not to do so, I’d only see PP2.
Technically one could fan. By doing so the cascading of ID's then would be oriented to the new OP. On the 30m it happens more frequently.
For me, I'm looking to accelerate the progression of trends to faster timeframes. Since RDBMS tracks trend segments, to fan would then include two, three segments. As a matter of preference, I like to see each segment, independent of the construction of tapes/traverses/channels.
NB : I’m still not sure about why to log both FS and any other EE being as FS takes precedence AND when two FS’s are present on a same bar, I’m still unsure the logical path to follow is the same as when OB surges with FS then PP !. As I previously mentionned, my current LOD dictates that, when a given bar (but not an OB) is naturally both FS’s, I use concerning the MT/MR the first of the two in the order of event (a BO,T1 always happen before BMrev) as n EE, try to link it with n-1 EE in the MT ; at this moment, I ignore the second (which is always BMrev therefore) FS. And then when comes the next bar having an EE I consider the n-1 being BMrev, and try to lin kit by MT to the new current EE happening.
In the present sequence, when BO,T1/PP2 surges (7 :30), the n-1 EE is PP3. Now the question is : which of the BO,T1 and PP2 surges first in the OOE ? I feel this can only be answered in real time. (from here I admit the non fanning of the rtl is correct although I don’t get why, and build from this. Anyway, even though this non fanning was an ommission, the case frequently happens with no consideration of fanning rtl). Effectively, being as prior bar (second T1) has a leg 3, ASA next bar went above H of prior one, we could measure it (we’d have XB at this moment). The thing is that by not fanning prior rtl, we can see by the form of the bar that the close of 7 :30 bar never went inside of it. BO,T1 from the first to the 300th second of the bar unfolding. Let’s say we’d have fanned the rtl. By looking close enough we can see the current bar would be a BO,T1 only when at its low. It’s the only point outisde of prior rtl if it was fanned. So far, cool and easy. Now, what do we need to see a PP2, as IDd here ? P2 between two T1’s and no INT between the T1’s. It’s the case here. BUT, of course, most likely the volume corresponding bar did not reach its in-between T1’s level in a second. It must certainly have taken some time. The question of the OOE as for BO,T1 -> PP2 or PP2 -> BO,T1 would be then solved by knowing if the close (let’s ignore the non fanning action of the rtl once again) of the bar went out of the prior rtl BEFORE volume was at a P2 level. OH ! bingo, this reminds me something : description of true BO,T1 reminded by Tiddly some weeks ago : BO of the rtl before P2 has appeared. In hindsight, we can only consider the « P2 has appeared » at EOB. In real time, the dynamic aspect of the thing makes this more accurate and fine to catch. The comfortable thing is that although price can yo-yo with the close making it dance between in/out of rtl, once volume reaches P2 it will never be a T1 anymore, the upper limit is exceeded, end of the questions. So, specifically in this scenario, with this rtl not fanned, BO,T1 must have happened before P2 appeared. Most likely. Or, the only theorical possibility is that at the open of the bar, volume jumps in a sec at P2 level and the two EE’s was already there at the same time. I hindsight this is a bet, but I’d say I’m sure in real time what happened here was P2 took more time to appear than BO,T1. Not risky bet
Thus, I understand here : in the OOE, BO,T1 happened before P2. This is easy to DD being as with the non fanning of rtl, BO,T1 is obvious all along the bar unfolded. If fanning the rtl, things would be way more difficult. Real time only could answer.
Now the OOE of the two EEs is clear, let’s study how turns have been IDd. It could give a clue for how to manage the « two EE’s on the same bar » scenario.
n-1 EE was PP3. It was b-turn, Set D trend just completed. I can see the [BO,T1/PP2] combo has received an a-turn. From PP3 in MT, no linking exist towards BO,T1 nor PP2 in Set D. The answer will not be provided here yet. It’s also a non MR, this won’t help either as neither BO,T1 nor PP2 are MR i Set D. if a-turn. Next bar is INT Wait. Then next bar is EE and BMrev. Of course, it’s b-turn and a MR according to what has been IDd. It won’t help either. Wait and see.
In my progression, ID'ing as many ID's on a single bar allowed me to consider which one is more appropriate. As the concept of using one or two ID's was being examined, having a record of the multiple ID's was more supportive. I currently do it out of habit and at times omit a secondary ID. The secondary ID's even though they followed the OOE of volume sequences, going with a FS allows for a faster recognition of sentiment changes.
7 :50 : after degap, BO,T1 yes. Tricky and I love that.
8 :05 : You’re used to ID BMrev when close is right on BM. I would have DDd you’d see the same when close is right on rtl. This bar seems to have its close in this case. You could have seen a BO,T1. No big deal, maybe it’s the non accurate enough view I have of your screenshot.
8 :10 : quite strange, BO,T1 but close seems to be right on rtl too.
Sometimes, it's just a judgement call. On debrief, I could have done the above. The cascading would have added two BM,rev's to the turn/trend sequence.
8 :30 : you did not put the BMrep like you did on first Lat4 of the chart, anyway new bar triggers BMrev.
Lat4 is a P1 - long. Lat5 is the BM,rev - Long to Short
8 :50 : I dont’ see the reason why this Lat3 is there. Only Lat4 for me, it’s in the shadow of Lat1, all PCs are INT. Either mistake or I’m missing something due to LOD.
A lateral formed at 8:45, a sub-lateral formed at 8:50
9 :35 : short rtl does not appear, I would have put one.
I have it as the same H as when paired with 9:30. Although in the lateral it is lat13/12.
9 :55 : no rtl can be drawn from 9 :45 so I don’t see why BO,T1 can appear on this bar. I only see BMrev.
I work backwards. I first define the bars that can only be BM,rev. The bars that are only BO,T1's. Then the bars that can be both. From there, I have a subset of bars which I use 'is this more like ____ less like ____.'
In this series (just looking at eob) since there was a T1 in the trend sequence it finds itself in the basket - this is more like BO,T1 then BM,rev. If there was not a T1, no wait, nor a rtl, then that is a BM,rev.
12 :45 : BO,T1 even if you had fanned the long rtl but…why didn’t you fan again ?
13 :00 : still not possible for me to get the 78 treatment and the subsequent bar’s, so I don’t really know why Ah is there. EDIT : no, I get why Ah is there, finally.
