[ljyoung]

It would seem more appropriate to negate the methodology that Spydertrader and others have espoused and are espousing, by providing concrete evidence, in a separate thread, of its abject, nay wretched, failure. Until such time as something like this is actually done, lamentations about lost and/or confused sheep seem nothing more than that. Might I suggest as the title for such a thread something along the lines of "The Fundamental Flaw and yada yada".

As best I can ascertain, the focus of this thread is not to defend the method but rather to continue to educate those who wish to continue to be educated in the niceties of the method, by a practitioner of the method with a particular viewpoint of the method and a particular way of instructing those who wish to be so instructed.

lj

[DbPhoenix]

Originally Posted by ljyoung »

It would seem more appropriate to negate the methodology that Spydertrader and others have espoused and are espousing, by providing concrete evidence, in a separate thread, of its abject, nay wretched, failure. Until such time as something like this is actually done, lamentations about lost and/or confused sheep seem nothing more than that. Might I suggest as the title for such a thread something along the lines of "The Fundamental Flaw and yada yada".

As best I can ascertain, the focus of this thread is not to defend the method but rather to continue to educate those who wish to continue to be educated in the niceties of the method, by a practitioner of the method with a particular viewpoint of the method and a particular way of instructing those who wish to be so instructed.

lj

Actually the most appropriate action -- given that nothing is being sold -- is to leave it alone. Novices cannot be saved from themselves, and if one chooses to spend years trying to learn this, that is his choice. At some point, he will either get it, give up, or go broke. But those who post here already have mothers.

There are threads here and everywhere that are pure gold. There are also threads here and everywhere that are complete nonsense. But it is up to the individual to decide which is which for himself.

[BlowFish]

Originally Posted by thalestrader »

That is quite a long time to spend learning a trading method only to feel that you still have not yet mastered it. Have you considered a time "stop loss" after which you would, in spite of the considerable effort and time you have invested in the approach, cut your losses and move on to examine a different approach to determining "what the market is telling us"? I doubt that it is your understanding that is flawed, as from your posts you strike me as an intelligent fellow. At any rate, I wish you my best.

Best Wishes,

Thales

This occurred to me.

The core concepts of this methodology are based on pretty sound principles imo. Principles that are also relatively straightforward. Some years ago I spent a long time with the material understanding the many layers and nuances that built on these principles. For me I want simplicity and clarity in my charts I found the framework needlessly complex it actually obscured what I needed to see to make trading decisions. For me what it added to the core principles was not worth the extra complexity. I have no doubt that if you drill for years you will get to the stage where this is not the case. I guess it depends what your objectives are. I am interested in methods tht have synergy with my beliefs, I also like a challenge, however to eek out a meagre few points a day I would rather a method that a nine year old could show me (if you catch my drift) .

In short I am sure the method is efficacious but it seems clear to me there are far far simpler approaches that are too. There are various hurdles to over come in trading without having to deal with a complex methodology. I also think that the ego has more space to operate with added complexity that's a whole other story but also partly explains the attraction to some methods.

[Mr_black]

Lot's of point3's today

[ljyoung]

I agree with db's sentiment about leaving this thread to its own devices but did suggest one of many possible exit strategies for those who feel the need to express their feelings, thoughts, discomforts, etc. about the merit, lack of merit, complexity, etc. of the method.

If I might return to the topic at hand then, a question for Spyder. I read what you have so far formulated with respect to what a Lateral, for the purposes of this discussion, is, as follows.

A Lateral is an entity which begins, and must begin, as a Lateral Formation, with bars 2 and 3 inside bar 1, though bar 3 is not necessarily inside bar 2. If bars 2 and 3 are not inside bar 1 then we don't have a Lateral Formation.

From bar 4 onwards we have, what is called a Lateral. It may continue to be a Lateral Formation (everything inside bar 1). It may form what used to be called a Lateral Movement with a high or low outside the range of bar 1 but with the close inside bar 1. It may have a high or a low outside bar 1 and then close outside bar 1.

The first two examples for bar 4 may continue on with a bar 5, 6, ... and will remain a Lateral until there is a bar which closes outside bar 1 which then gives a situation like the third example immediately above.

When a bar closes ouside bar 1, and let's say for this example it is bar 4, then if bar 5 closes back inside bar 1, we still have a Lateral. This also used to be called a Lateral Movement. If however bar 5 closes outside bar 1 then the Lateral is terminated at bar 5. The Lateral extends to the bar on which it is terminated.

Your "More" pic validates what has been said above except for the first Lateral which is not extended to include the termination pair. Is this a clerical oversight or is it a decision to group the second bar of the terminating pair with the next bar to form a pennant?

TIA (Great to have you back.)

lj

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by ljyoung »

Your "More" pic validates what has been said above except for the first Lateral which is not extended to include the termination pair. Is this a clerical oversight or is it a decision to group the second bar of the terminating pair with the next bar to form a pennant?

Your post accurately describes the Lateral Formations as presented in this thread. The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw.' In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.

I did not extend the lateral boundary ending the First Lateral (in the 'more' example) simply to prevent the annotation from 'covering' the next two bar closes (precipitated by the need to 'squish' the chart due to the day's extended range). I wanted everyone to have the ability to see the two closes, rather than, have them somewhat obscured by the Lateral Annotation.

HTH

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader]

This Morning's non-dominant traverse.

[romanus]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

The lateral formation continues until terminated with two closes outside the Lateral boundaries (created from the High / Low of Bar 1) - except where the 'two closes' form a 'flaw.' In such a case, we require a 'third' close outside the lateral boundary in order to have reached 'termination' of the previous lateral.

The 5 min bars built by my data provider differ a little bit from yours. The second close outside of the lateral which begins at 11:50 (7/13/09) forms a 2nd bar of the stitch. The bar which follows the stitch closes back inside the lateral. Would I be correct extending the lateral further as shown by dashed lines in the attached? Thank you.