Quote from llIHeroic:
Here is my current PP1 Sheet. I have two questions about PP1 in order to complete my knowledge.
1. On the Pre-Primary EE Sheet, under "Additional Requirements," the following is written:
(P1.2 - P1.1) < (P1.0 - P1.1)
Is this a mistake, or am I misunderstanding something? Let's use the example that was kindly posted by smwbbe, and used in my attached image. Let us just assume the grid-lines for volume shown are by increments of 5,000 for the purpose of discussion. Here are estimated Volume values of the P1's.
P1.0 = 14,000
P1.1 = 19,000
P1.2 = 25,000
If we use these numbers in the above equation, we get this:
(25,000 - 19,000) < (14,000 - 19,000) -> (6,000 < -5,000) -> false.
I thought perhaps the equation was intended to read:
(P1.2 - P1.1) < (P1.1 - P1.0), but that would be (6,000 < 5,000), which is false as well. Can anyone clarify my misunderstanding here?
--
Also, Jack posted the following as well,
Can someone explain what this is referring to? I wasn't sure how to relate this to my understanding of PP1 because it seems that if there are multiple Peaks, the time that PP1 could have possibly occurred in that trend would have already passed for good since another P1 assignment would only occur at the start of a new trend.
Bar naming and bar referencing is difficult.
For the platform I use the maths are built by ID'ing bars correctly.
Bars are ordered events.
The present bar is called bar.0
As you see the present is cited as .0
In PP1 we are qualifying acceration over bars.
To regard bars as accelerating, you do testing.
In your writeup you show three bars where they do not even pass the P1 test.
Because I wanted to have a complete system, I worked within the bounds that others set. I look at these people and their mental progress under the whims of the owner of the company they work for. Its tough.
So far the company will degap quarters and days. But they will not degap bar to bar as their competitors do.
tiddly is pointing out how bar to bar a huge degap is needed in an example that never could happen.
Here is how it goes.
we can agree to assign names to bars over time. No future bars get named at this point. Past bars get further into the past as new bars form.
The forming bat is bar.0
The prior bar is bar.1 This prior bar has values: H.1, L.1, O.1, C.1 and V.1
So you can see right off, there are no platforms in use today that allow traders to get the job done simply. Owners are selling stuff to attract dumb clients.
Naturally, smart people buy raw data and invent their own processing systems.
For me, my mind can process whatever comes along. Making money is so available that anyone can do it quite easily with their minds.
I recommend that each person use the viewing and trading platforms they wish. My criteria is to have good data all the time.
