[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by dkm »

For the sake of clarity will you please define what this "one sort of lateral" is that you are referring to instead of repeatedly referring to other posts that were equally confusing.

I do not understand what you find confusing about the following ...

Originally Posted by TIKITRADER »

Just to clarify the chart snippets I posted contained a gray shaded lateral and a red shaded lateral.
It is only the red shaded lateral that meets the requirements of the drill.

As such, please click on Tiki's posted chart ...

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Once again, we are only discussing one type of Lateral (See Tiki's posted chart to see the difference).

I was also quite clear with this post

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

I assume (do to the differences in shading [red vs gray] of your example laterals) you understand the second lateral represents the current discussion lateral example (whereas the first example does not).

- Spydertrader

[dkm]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

I do not understand what you find confusing about the folowwing ...

As such, please click on Tiki's posted chart ...

- Spydertrader

Along with many others, I do not understand the point that you are trying to make.

[romanus]

Originally Posted by FilterTip »

...
So (post 1239) is about defining a a lateral as Dom or Non-dom.

Don't we need to know what fractal we are on in order to know what leg the lateral is being considered Dom or Non-dom within?

I believe you are absolutely correct. The quoted definitions presuppose that an observer is able to define what "fractal" IS in some way that is consistent across all contexts. That way one doesn't have to worry about defining what the "context" IS. Unfortunately, that knowledge eludes me and I am pretty much where Charles Kittel was when he wrote in the "Introduction to Solid State Physics": "We have not succeeded in finding or constructing a definition which starts out "A Bravais lattice is...": the sources we have looked at say "That was a Bravaise lattice."

[Tams]

Originally Posted by dkm »

Unfortunately that post did not help me in any way because I have yet to understand what it is you are alluding to with respect to differentiating laterals. It now seems that the boundary of a lateral is defined by a bar within the lateral and something is implied by whether or not it has incr or decr volume.
This could take forever..............

if you start taking note of the permutations,
it is never too late...

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by FilterTip »

how can they both be correct?

Please review the post to which you refer - especially the quoted portions of the previous posters. You should note, one individual's (Ezzy) quote refers to a sequence of events. I indicated a correct set of annotations with a response to direction only.The second individual (TIKI) referred to how an Outside Bar formed (Price making a higher high [over the previous bar] prior to closing below the bar's open). I indicated he had posted a correct analysis with respect to the Outside bar only.

- Spydertrader

[FilterTip]

Originally Posted by sambrown »

FilterTip and dmk,

Please compare Tiki's yesterday's lateral post with today's 11:10am lateral. Today lateral boundary was created by 11:20 and 11:25 bars. Did you see the same in Tiki's post?
The differences between the two are the way the first bar was formed and the direction the price exited. I hope this help.

Thx for the reply.
Yes I "see the same on TIKI's post".

I've attached the two charts your mention for reference.
(so we're all on the same page)

My understanding of what you are saying is :

1. Your chart shows a lateral, the first bar of which is on increasing volume.
2. TIKI's chart shows a lateral (the second red shaded lateral), the first bar of which is on decreasing volume.
3. Both are in the Dominant direction (on the basis that they both occur post b2b).
4. Both have bars within the lateral that touch (create, with") the "upper" boundary of the lateral.
5. Your lateral exits in the dominant direction (up)
6. TIKI's exits in the opposite direction (down)

Can we conclude there for the following differentiations:
1. A dominant lateral who's first bar is on decreasing volume that "creates, with" the upper boundary will exit in the opposite direction from which it entered?

2. A dominant lateral who's first bar is on increasing volume that "creates, with" the upper boundary will exit in the same direction from which it entered?

The above is specific to these "things" that have happened.
Thus they are dependent on
a. Lateral being dominant or non-dominant.
b. First bar of lateral having increasing or decreasing volume.
c. Whether it is the upper or lower boundary that has been "created, with".


I shall obviously have to look through 27 years worth of charts to "compare and contrast"
so any thoughts on the above and any assistance on "comparing and contrasting" are appreciated.

??

Many thx

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by romanus »

I believe you are absolutely correct. The quoted definitions presuppose that an observer is able to define what "fractal" IS in some way that is consistent across all contexts.

I haven't presupposed anything.

Of the three 'things' which dictate what annotations belong on a chart (context, order of events and [differentiation of the actual] objects), I simply started with the easiest of the three.

In addition, knowing how Price must exit a specific lateral type provides opportunity for people to earn real money every time they see a certain 'thing' appear on a chart.

Lastly, Within the last two days, I've provided several examples of how one applies the scientific method for moving forward in an effort to show people what they must do in order to untangle that which they find confusing.

Unfortunately, very few have seen as beneficial that which has been posted over the last 2 days.

- Spydertrader

[romanus]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

I haven't presupposed anything.

You are correct, the presupposition was created by me in the process of attempting to understand the intended meaning.

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Of the three 'things' which dictate what annotations belong on a chart (context, order of events and [differentiation of the actual] objects), I simply started with the easiest of the three.

I don't disagree with the approach. Personally, I keep running into the same problem, the missed component of monitoring, that prevents me from knowing what comes next, - and my attempted humor in the quoted post was meant as " a reference only" to my personal state of being "stuck" in the particular place of my inquiry.

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

Unfortunately, very few have seen as beneficial that which has been posted over the last 2 days.

I have been fortunate to be reminded by you on numerous occasions that certain things repeatedly exist on charts irrespective of the observer's ability or inability to notice them. Keep in mind, it took me quite some time to tell the difference between those containers that have overlapping point's two and those that don't.

So, the group of "very few", that you are referring to, includes at least one more member for sure (+1), that is myself.


P.S. Trying to define those "things", that one sees, in terms that don't allow for contradiction is a very hard and demanding task. And it may be appreciated by more people than you think.