I agree with @ ImpLaNT that @regit's scheme is interesting and aught to be useful. But I suggest that instead of "haunting" for patterns in an attempt to find hidden combinations of graphical stimuli that might lead to consistent trading cues from the Screenface - let us instead focus on confirming with @regits scheme (as well as the snaps), what we know works consistently already. My reasoning is simply as I told everyone before - no two sequences are the same EVER, regardless of scale. So it is doubtful that "haunting" for some hidden set of visual cues will pay off that much (given no 2 sequences are the same ever). This is why we use the notion of phase synchrony to indicate the Inverse On command (because nothing else will turn out consistent). What do I mean by this? See slides below so that we can use snaps and video to a) confirm the CUES below (which are already consistent and accurate), and b) evaluate and discuss their various contexts in terms of applying them consistently by different traders in trading Orbit the Tool (that is, what is the common experience with the cues and why would they be complex to understand for others and not me or @ ImpLaNT)?

Frankly, I fail to see the problem because to me Orbit is the simplest to trade application ever and the apparent difficulty is just i) the shock of a uniquely different method or way of trading, and ii) the unwillingness of people to understand the concepts and instead insisting that because it is chaos mathematics it has got to be some complex set of steps that "I have been unable to explain." But it is nothing more than I have again repeated in a different way below - dead simple.

For example, @ ImpLaNT gets it to an expert level already and can in fact teach it well (in my view). Chaos and fractal geometry are underpinned by "natural" laws and laws not unlike those for how GRAVITY works and so when you see it you know it (but you must first understand the concept - what goes up must come down or you will miss it when you see it). For example, please somebody tell me this "What are the rules in and the correct steps for throwing a ball up and watching it fall?" It is the same thing with concepts such as Inverse On, Strange Attractor, etc. It is because people have refused to see the simplicity and naturalness of it all that there is a block in the required understanding (that it is NOT about indicators or some "special" technique but the science or behaviours that make the system (market), the way it is and knowing those behaviours - or laws). There can be nothing simpler in trading than trading by Orbit ----there are no rules required and yet all the patterns and behaviours are consistent and true. @ ImpLaNT you know the concepts very well help them see that it is as I spell out in the slides below and nothing more.

(-_-)

PS: For the sake of encouragement let me state the following: The theory that underpins the tool (chaos theory), functions to simplify and in no sense does it confuse. Indeed, the math involved is not a complexity at all as the equation we use is just a simple quadratic with a single maximum. The amazement of science and scientists is NOT the complexity of the equation or the difficulty of the theory, but that such a simple equation generates incredibly complex outputs when iterated, e.g. the market or the Mandelbrot set, etc. Is it not a simplification to know that the repeated folding and stretching of the space to which a variable maps is how the markets are driven? And you can see this in the tick chart and in market charts especially using the MRI tool.