But I kinda do..
Quote from frenchfry:
For PP3s I found this definition: "...a T1 between two consecutive P1's...".
But your quoted comment above seems to define PP3 as three TT1's. Which definition is correct?
Whenever I read "consecutive" or "accelerating" in your definitions does this always mean that between bar n-1 and n that there can/should be NEVER an internal for the definition to be true?
One last question... whenever you talk about "FIVE OOE's" are you referring purely to the volume OOE's or something like this:
1. Price: 4 moves (OOE's)
2. Volume: 5 moves (OOE's)
3. ? Forgot it, need to look it up
4. Category test procedure
5. ? Forgot it, need to look it up
Thanks for the explanations.Quote from jack hershey:
...
There is a table that names four types of trends. A parallelogram is a trend geometric container. About no one knows there are four types of trends. To are incomplete and two are complete. the incomplete ones are FBO's. The normal trend and the drift trend make up the two complete type trends.
....
I typed this from memory.
Quote from frenchfry:
Thanks for the explanations.
Regarding the "normal trend" (=C)... this trend consists of:
1. c. Dominant to Dominant (D-D)
2. a. Dominant to Non-dominant (D-ND)
3. b. Non-dominant to dominant (ND-D)
4. c. Dominant to Dominant (D-D)
Somehow this doesn't fit with what I "know" about the pattern.
1. Price Pt1 to Pt2 = ND (P1 to T1) to D (T1 to P2) volume move
2. Price Pt2 to Pt3 = ND (P2 to T2)
3. Price Pt3 to FTT = D (T2 to P3)
Therefore the sequence I see for a normal (C) trend is: ND-D-ND-D
Maybe the "abc" of the C trend means something else when we define "dominant" and "non-dominant". You start with a D-D move but what ever way I turn it I end up with:
D-ND = Reaching FTT with dominant volume and then turning at the FTT or Pt1 with non-dominant to a RTL breakout direction T1
Quote from jack hershey:
Why would you begin your own thread and stay there?
I will go to your own thread where you stay to read your answer.
Quote from danielc1:
That is the whole point, Jack. You should answer the OP questions on the level they need and not what you think they need. If you think they need your advice and explanation about how you think the markets work, you need to start your own thread and not invade every other thread with your explanations about your ideas. I personally do not understand that the moderators on ET let you do that over and over again.