A simple hitch - Double noose

[xarax]

   Even a small change ( like the crossing of the tails, before they exit the nub ), may force the whole nub to rotate, and become more or less elongated to its one or its other direction - which may be a good or a bad thing, depending on how tight it can become in its new orientation : when the angles of the "legs" of the nub, as it "sits" on the surface of the pole, change, the friction forces between them and the pole may increase or decrease, and this is very important thing in all those hitches.
   See at the attached pictures, how the mere crossing of the tails ( which we might had thought that it would had been an improvement, as it happens in the Gleipnir ) of a very stable and tight "belly up" hitch ( of the "red" one ), forces a much more pronounced change on the nub than we would had anticipated, and it makes it less stable, less compact, and not so tight.
   Moral of the story : do not try to figure out which would be the more compact or the more tight hitch in advance : tie and try it, and pre-tension it as hard as it takes - you may be surprised by the outcome. The fact that those knots are very tight, does not mean that they are not very sensitive to small changes of themselves, the environment, or the relation between themselves and the environment.

[xarax]

   Something like this happens in the case of the Clove-X-based tight hitches ( the Clove X hitch is an ignored form of the Clove hitch which I have seen that, in some cases, it may be tighter than the common Clove hitch - which common Clove hitch Ashley refers to and draws 60 times, while he shows the Clove X hitch only once ? ?  ).
   See the attached pictures : when the continuations of the legs of the wraps do not go through both openings of the Clove X hitch ( "red" hitch ), we get a better knot than when they do ( "blue" hitch ) - although we might had anticipated the exact opposite. The symmetry of the whole configuration does not guarantee a more tight hitch : the nub of the "blue" hitch is disturbed more from the alternating pulling of the ends, while the one of the "red" hitch remains more stable, and because of that it is able to become more tight ( the pulling of the next end does not subtracts some of the tension accumulated by the pulling of the previous end ).

[xarax]

   Let us return to the hitch based on a Doubly slipped overhand knot / Ton Foul s knot ( ABoK#1133). Its great advantages is that it is TIB, that it is tight = self-locking, and that it can be formed and dressed in-the-hand and then be inserted on the pole ( by an accessible end of it) in a glance.
   There are two ways we can make it "sit" on the surface of the pole : "belly up" or "belly down" . Each of those two ways leads to a series of different knots - because we can also twist / rotate the two wraps around an axis perpendicular to the axis of the pole, and, after each such 180 degrees twist / rotation, we get a different hitch, with different self-locking characteristics than the hitch we had before. In this and the next post one can see some pictures of symmetric such hitches, where both lines of the two wraps turn clock-wise or counter-clockwise - i.e., they are not "Bull"-like hitches, as the Bull Pretzel hitch or the Double Ring hitch.
   When we are able pull each end really hard against the pole, it turns out that the most tight, most securely self-locking hitch is the one shown in the first attached picture. The direct continuations of the Standing Ends, when they meet the surface of the pole, they make sharp, almost 90 degrees turns - and these turns, combined with the encircling, overlaying and "closing" tightly around itself overhand knot, "lock" them very efficiently / securely. The more I was pulling the ends, the one after the other, the more tight the hitch was becoming : it never re-"swallowed" even a miniscule amount of the material that has been pulled out of it.
   The other hitches were not so tight : by the pull of each end it seemed that their nubs were disturbed more than we would had wished, and the two legs of each wrap which point to opposite directions when they leave the nub, had a tendency to make it "open up" a little bit, and did not allow it to "close" around itself very tightly.
   ( The -1, 01, 02, +1, and +2 labels have to do with the successive 180 degrees twist-rotation of each wrap ).

[xarax]

   One more 180 degrees twist / rotation, and seen from "above" : it is tighter than the 01 and 02, but not as tight as the first one.
   When turned upside down, it forms the also very tight hitch shown in the second picture ( and at another post ). We may say that it looks and works like the Strangle, but, from my trials, I got the impression that it can become more tight than the Strangle.