[romanus]

Originally Posted by bericheson »

A specific example would be 1140 on 01/25. To me that looked like another r2r which must complete. Does anyone else find themselves struggling with such events?

Yes.
I do.
That object appeared to be r2r, but it obviously wasn't.

[bericheson]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Yes.
I do.
That object appeared to be r2r, but it obviously wasn't.

Thanks for your reply. I have received a few PM's suggesting that others have the same problem. I had a lat at 10:55 (not conforming to the latest drill) and I'm curious if maybe that had some effect on the formation of a r2r at 11:40. For instance, maybe we need two bars of increasing vol after a formation breakout to give us another r2r? Anyone have ideas to bounce around?

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Just to clarify something, defining the boundaries of the lateral as Dom or Non-dom appears to be contingent on the order of events.

Then name the differences anything you like. Up / Down, Left / Right, Goat / Hedgehog or whatever other binary pattern suits you. The vocabulary isn't nearly as important as recognizing a subtle difference in the object itself (at this point in time). For example, the first example of a Lateral (today), moved in the opposite direction of the previous bar (Note, how I did not use Dominant nor Non-Dominant here). Whereas, yesterday's examples formed in the same direction as the previous bar (to the actual lateral). Clearly, such a thing would represent a subtle difference.

At some point in the future (once you do have a better handle on Order of Events), you can always change the vocabulary.

- Spydertrader

[romanus]

Originally Posted by bericheson »

Thanks for your reply. I have received a few PM's suggesting that others have the same problem. I had a lat at 10:55 (not conforming to the latest drill) and I'm curious if maybe that had some effect on the formation of a r2r at 11:40. For instance, maybe we need two bars of increasing vol after a formation breakout to give us another r2r? Anyone have ideas to bounce around?

I am afraid I have no constructive feedback to offer as my approach to solving this is somewhat different. Due to axiomatic nature of Price Volume relationship, which is based on the premise that "the sequences are always completed", it logically follows that the object that only appears to be r2r is in fact not r2r if it is not followed by 2b2r.

[Ezzy]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Just to clarify something, defining the boundaries of the lateral as Dom or Non-dom appears to be contingent on the order of events. In other words if one is unable to determine the correct order of events in real time, one could mistakenly conclude that the lateral in the attached has it's upper boundary as Non-dominant with respect to the drawn in red down container and as such compare it to the other similar laterals in the attempt to determine the direction of BO.

Am I correct in looking at this as a catch-22 situation: if one knows the order of events in Real Time, one annotates the laterals appropriately with what is expected, and if one doesn't ...

I know what you mean. This reply from Spyder was helpful in the way I viewed Dom/Non-Dom: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...html#post87580

My previous view of the retrace (referred to in the link) was it was non-dom retrace, and so was the lateral which formed within it. But it was DOM on the retraces fractal, the retrace went B2B.

So you could "almost" say any lateral forms in the dominant direction of something. We had a b2b, so we had a dominant direction. If formed post pt3 of that b2b, we're still dominant of something. If it started non-dom of that fractal only then would it be considered a non-dom lateral.

It may be self evident, but it was an aha for me.

So the "larger", big picture, whatever, order of events weren't as much of a factor in this case.

And agree differentiating can get really screwed up if your context is wrong and comparing apples to oranges. Happens to me a lot, especially when you don't know you're doing it believing you have correctly annotated a chart - it really can get you

In some cases the context won't matter as much, but yeah, your not alone.

[treeline]

Originally Posted by Spydertrader »

We now have a group of Laterals where we can easily differentiate.

1. Bar 1 Direction - Dom vs Non-Dom
2. 'Forming Bar' Lateral boundary - Dom vs Non-Dom Side
3. Volume (all bars)

If it helps, you might try sketching things out on paper in an effort to 'see' the various situations which develop. However, do yourself a favor and start with a Three Bar Formation before moving onto any other types. Doing so, you'll soon see how many of the possible permutations do not have any effect in the overall outcome.

Attached is an attempt to list all possible permutations of a 3-bar Lateral Formation which conforms to the drill. I found 48 possible permutations, based on the above 3 characteristics. Next I'll try to determine which of these do not have any effect on the overall outcome. After that I will proceed to focusing on Order of Events and, finally, Context.

[Ezzy]

Four laterals for today. (Edit: Make that five) The last one forms with both dominant and non-dominant boundaries.

[Spydertrader]

Originally Posted by Ezzy »

Four laterals for today. The last one forms with both dominant and non-dominant boundaries.

Five.

- Spydertrader