[NYCMB]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

See attached.

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

Note the difference.

- Spydertrader

Hi Spydertrader and All JHM Students,

A) Observation on SYM Lateral starts on Bar 43---

1) SYM forms on Bar 44
2) Bar 46 is the first bar which tests the bottom boundary of the Lateral
3) This is a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

B) Observation on [SYM] Lateral starts on Bar 57---

a) Ignoring the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral:
1) SYM forms on Bar 58
2) Bar 62 is the bar which tests the bottom boundary of the Lateral; yet, Bar 61
penetrated (FBO) the bottom boundary of the Lateral before Bar 62 .
3) This is not a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

b) Apply the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral:
1) SYM forms on Bar 58
2) Bar 61 penetrated (FBO) the bottom boundary of the Lateral and ends the Lateral.
3) There is no bar testing the bottom boundary of the Lateral before Bar 61.
4) This is not a legitimate SYM Lateral comparing to the Lateral Drill pattern.

All comments are welcome and appreciated! TIA

[Ezzy]

Originally Posted by ptunic »

I am confused a bit here. It looks like the bar 55 and bar 79 laterals fit this same pattern, but the 67 lateral does not (it starts with a Sym, but there is no bar that tests the lateral before it is penetrated). Just wanted to confirm that neither of those 3 laterals fit into the same set of laterals from the Lateral Drill.

67 does not. The other ones do. I posted the corrected chart here: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...html#post86620

It also gives you a bonus lateral, one on the next day, that is the same. And one later that day that isn't. These two were mention in the post before the chart and so were included. The Green circles are all conforming laterals.

[innersky]

The first lateral starts with a dominant bar, while the second starts with a non-dominant bar, however, this bar is also an outside bar.

Another difference is that the first lateral moves in the non dominant direction after the second bar, while the other lateral moves in the dominant direction after the second bar.

Also the lateral boundary test is not at the same side.

--
innersky

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

See attached.

What makes the two highlighted areas different?

The 'SYM Lateral 1 - Dom' conforms to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). 'SYM lateral 2 - Non-Dom' does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up).

Note the difference.

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by romanus »

In other words, how can one KNOW in real time that 1135-1215 and 1220-1240 tapes represent medium \R and medium /B as opposed to skinny r2r and skinny 2b of the container that one may think is moving the Price from Point 2 to Point 3 of the Traverse.

You cannot see what the market has provided because of a bias caused by vocabulary. For now, try not to think in terms of 'tapes' building 'traverses' and 'traverses' building 'channels.' Instead, think in terms of 'fractals' (pipes, tubes, containers or pathways [whatever works best for you]) without names where one fractal builds another moving up to slower and slower fractals, but also, where one fractal is built by something faster moving downward.

Remove the overall bias by deleting your Gaussians, and look for an alternative way to annotate the area from 10:20 AM to 11:30 AM. For it is here where the real annotation error resides.

Once you can see why the 10:20 AM to 11:30 AM area cannot result in your current annotations, you'll have the answer to your question.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by NYCMB »

Ignoring the rule that an IBGS with Increasing Volume terminates a Lateral

Before one can concern themselves with how something ends, one must (for certain) know how that something begins. Adding uneccesary paramters provides nothing but uneeded complexity. As such, one need not consider (at this point) how any sort of Lateral examples end.

Remain focused on how any example begins in order to see whether or not any lateral you see conforms to the examples provided by The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). After you know you have an appropriate example, then you can determine what (if any) subtle differences (in the formation of the object itself) differ in such a way where one has the ability to clearly 'see' what information the market has provided. Finally, by combining this information with context and order of events one can know exactly to annotate a different thing on the chart's Volume Pane.

HTH.

- Spydertrader

[TIKITRADER]

Originally Posted by innersky »

The first lateral starts with a dominant bar, while the second starts with a non-dominant bar, .

--
innersky

Yes I see this and agree. Laterals form from bar 1 of the lateral, as a dominant bar, or a non dominant bar, and that begins creating the lateral. Respective of the fractal they are on.


While a series of laterals within one fractal exist as dom, non dom, dom ( ex: traverse ), on another fractal they may each be dominant( ex: tape level ).
( which may help eliminate fractal jumping and staying on course)

jbarnby had begun to differentiate and posted this in the past

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...html#post72076

and a reply to his work posted here

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...html#post72091

[TIKITRADER]

Monthly ES had just broken the right trendline that has held from March lows with a close remaining so far outside

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by innersky »

Also the lateral boundary test is not at the same side.

The Second Lateral (the 'non-dom' labled example) does not conform to the examples in The Lateral Formation Drill (and follow up). Understand why it does not.

- Spydertrader