Something that is helpful is to think ‘is more like’ or ‘is less like’. If Bar29’s form or sentiment was different, it would have been ‘more like’ a bar to include in a long trend. In this case, it’s ‘more like’ a bar to include in a short by it’s XO of a rtl established by a T1.
Therefore,
Bar29, XR, BO,T1, BM at high. Tentative rtl drawn for anticipation.
Bar30, MADA view, unless the bar was a high volatility bar, the following sequence occurred.
Intrabar, the bar opens and arrives short with a T1 in volume, attempting to resume the longer trend short. As soon as it XO the prior bar’s extremes, it and volume are measured. The fact that it’s not EOB is noted. Bars change form often prior to EOB.
We know that there is a larger short context in effect in that there are XR’s with IV and XB’s with DV (characteristics of a Dom and non-Dom short trend segments when considered with the current geometry)
However, IV in the short failed to arrive, so it reversed off the low and XO, the rtl established by it being a T1 intrabar. Before it XO’d the rtl it XO’d it’s own doji, changing the bar’s sentiment from short to long. Before that event occurred, there was an ftt at the tape level. The tape uses the tentative rtl that was drawn with the BM. However the tape was a ve prior to it’s reversal. WCB a reversal?
A retrace comes before a reversal.
What makes a bar a retrace vs a reversal?
Let’s keep looking how this bar builds.
At some point this bar goes from DV to IV.
At some point this bar goes past it’s own doji.
At some point this bar goes past the prior bar’s low, it’s close and it’s high.
At some point this bar presented as a BO,T1. Then it showed BM,rev. But it closed off it’s high and in a zone that made it not BM,rev. But the fact that it surpassed the prior bar’s low and high now make it into an OB.
So in logging the bar, as soon as it becomes an OB, the log row is sub divided. However there is volume being measured as soon as a form allows it, which in this case was XR->StR->OB. This being done intrabar. Upon final LI or EOB, this annotation stands or fails and the final form gets logged. As an artifact.
Therefore a BO,T1 in the top row and advance to next on the bottom row.
This is an area that requires more differentiation for me in the placing of multiple BM’s on the OB. In this particular case I would have put it at the low of the bar reflecting the BO,T1 in the upper row and ending that short trend segment. However, the final ID was that of an OB so a BM is also assigned for that. Which indicates a BM at it’s high. Jack, in his writings, for certain cases, have supported the idea of an OB having two turns assigned to it. However, I’ve not found any chart & log pairings that have brought greater clarity to that concept as of yet.
Currently I see PP4’s start with FS and not FS. That determines whether the next bar assignment is a P1 or T1.
At a certain point of learning, one discovers
the system is remarkably resilient. Even though one notices the cascading of re-identifying EE’s as one debriefs and makes corrections and refinements, the layering of all of Jack’s concepts is holistic in nature. They work like checks and balances. Most importantly is that it is self-correcting when viewed from receiving the market’s full offer.
Making a map of the 5 entwining OOE’s at play is very supportive in putting the concepts in LTM.
1) The OOE of OOE’s
2) primary volume OOE
3) secondary volume OOE
4) test procedure OOE
5) EE band OOE.
Mapping these on to a drawing of ‘the pattern’ and associated gaussians, moves, events, is an illuminating exercise.
HTH
