[romanus]

Originally Posted by frenchfry »

... Was volume not important for those three specific laterals? ....

========================= ========================= ======= post #1137

Originally Posted by become »

....But to clarify, do you mean only the differences visible in this snippet as posted ....

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

No.

I intended the information previously posted to included ensuring everyone focused exclusively on the three Laterals Highlighted in Blue, and (for the purposes of this specific excercise) ignore any and all other Laterals which devloped during the day. I did not intend for those working through the exercise to focus solely on Price.
HTH.

- Spydertrader

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...html#post84507

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by saturo »

On 1/6/10 ...

is the 12:15 lateral part of a trend that begins at 11:40 and ends at 14:00?

Yes.

Originally Posted by saturo »

is the 14:40 lateral part of a trend that begins at 14:00 and ends at 15:40 ?

No.

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by frenchfry »

In other words if you only showed the first and the last bar of the lateral would that still be enough information?

No. Doing so omits Context and Order of Events - equally important as differentiating 'the thing' in order for differentiation to produce the correct chart annotations.

- Spydertrader

[MKTr]

Reattack on Spyder’s Lateral Formation Drill from 21 Dec 2009

How are the three lateral formations the same? They all begin with a SYM that is followed by a failure to break out of the SYM (first attempt). The failure to break out occurs only once in each case.

How are they different? After the SYM forms the important way they are different appears to be what happens when price tests the boundaries of the Lateral Formation:

Lat form #1: After the SYM forms, price tests a low but fails to break out. This test is done via a spike bar that would be identifiable as a sign for change (to long translation).

Lat form #2: After the SYM forms, price tests a low but fails to break out. This test is done via a spike bar that would be identifiable as a sign for change (to long translation).

Lat form #3: Price forms a SYM with an outside bar. The low of the formations first bar indicates a clear turning point for price. After the SYM forms, price tests the high but fails to break out. This test is NOT done via an identifiable signal for change back to short translation so the attempt to break out is still alive.

Lesson learned (I think): Consistent with the theme of the thread we look for signs for change but only via proper context and with respect to sequence. The context, in this case, is the high and low boundary of the Lateral Formation.

MKTr

PS Thanks for all the discussion on the Lat Form drill. Also, thanks to rs5 for all the charts.

[TIKITRADER]

As simple as I can be on laterals.


I could group laterals into . . .

The bar that initiates the lateral either

1) closes above the open

2) closes below the open

or possibly
3) could close at the open.

*Confirmation of a lateral does not occur until 2 bars form,complete, and close within the boundaries of the initiating bar

[TIKITRADER]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Already the discussion has glean one very important characteristic: Each of these specific laterals start with a Sym Pennant. But, is this the only characteristic of these specific types of Laterals? Surely, something else must set them apart from all other things which appear similar. In other words, why (on my own chart) have I annotated yesterday's midday period (1-14-2010 @ 12:35) as an example of these specific types of Laterals, but at EOD (1-14-2010 @ 15:15) I have not?



HTH.

- Spydertrader

P.S. (All times Eastern and [close of] ES [bar])

One thing that is different about these two is


12:35 lateral does not form within the boundaries of another lateral. ( Initiating lateral - bar 37 )

15:15 lateral forms within the boundaries of an existing lateral ( Initiating lateral - bar 69 )

[NYCMB]

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) - 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.
- Spydertrader

Hi Spydertrader

I have been gazing at the ES 12/21/2009 Lateral Drill chart for many times. Still I find there is a conflict between the way you teminats Lateral Two and your post on 07-14-2009 05:22 PM.

1) Based on the rules you posted on 07-14-2009 05:22 PM, I drew the doted line in bright blue to show the Lateral which starts on Bar 16 and ends on Bar 26

2) Bar 16 initiats the Lateral Two; you end the Lateral ( boundaries are in plum color) on bar 21.

3) Bar 21 closes outside the upper boundary of the lateral (boundaries in plumcolor)

4) Bar 22 is SYM and its close is on the upper boundary of the lateral, in other words, Bar 22 doesn't close outside the boundary.

5) Bar 23 is Hitch and its close is inside the upper boundary of the lateral

6) Bar 24 closes inside the upper boundary of the lateral

7) Bar 25 is OB and its close is on the upper boundary of the lateral
8) Bar 26 is SYM and it closes outside the u[[er boundary of the Lateral. Bar 26 ends the Lateral

9) Bar 27 is the second bar which closes outside the Lateral and terminats the Lateral

Could you tell us if you updated the rules for the termination of Lateral? If you did, what's the new rules for us to follow? Or, could you point out what kind of mistakes I made in terms of interpreting bars, closes and boundaries?

Everyone is welcome to participate in the Lateral discussion. TIA

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by NYCMB »

Could you tell us if you updated the rules for the termination of Lateral?

I have always found it wise (when differentiating a certain 'thing') to first place one's focus upon the creation of the 'thing' before looking to see how a 'thing' might end.

In other words, unless (and until) a trader has the ability to see the differences between the examples provided in The lateral Formation Drill (and follow up) and all other examples of Laterals provided by the market, nothing is gained by looking for how or when (or even why) a specific type of Lateral ends.

The highlighted portions of The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up) outline the locations of the individual examples (within the specific days in question) in an effort to make the examples easier to see (by avoiding 'overlap' of the examples). I did not intend the annotations to convey a location of Lateral Termination.

HTH.

- Spydertrader