[FJK]

Regarding laterals;

If we take Spyders recommendation for grouping laterals in two groups into consideration, one could for example label them:

- change and continuation

or

- dominant and non-dominant

If one choose the latter, how do we define dominant and non-dominant movement?
Is it, like jbarnby mentioned in post#265 "moving in the dominant direction on the forming bar" or do we define it as the forming bar has to be a dominent bar before the lateral can be defined as dominant?

If we take contexts into consideration, one also has to define which fractal that is to be analyzed. This is especially important if one choose to label them dominant and non-dominant.

I think it would be wise to start "simple" with what is known to be fact without any doubt. There are two "groups" according to Spyder, and we all know that context (i.e. where we are in the sequences) is a dealbraker. Then take it from there.

[Tams]

Originally Posted by romanus »

I note 3 types of laterals: (a) Point 2 to Point 3 movements, (b) post Point 3 movements into the trend, and (c) Point 1 to Point 2 movements [e.g. 15:15 on 7/23]. I suppose, both (b) and (c) can be classified as non-dominant. [As in one thing is dominant entering the lateral and then another thing is dominant exiting the lateral]. Other than their location in the gaussian sequence, I can't think of any other way of differentiating them.

can you post a diagram to illustrate your description?

TIA

[gucci]

Lateral movement of price (in a lateral formation) comprises the left to right flow of the market (price). How can this movement be dominant? If one calls it dominant, one simply missed an FBO (SOC) in this lateral (due to an unintentional fractal jumping perhaps). I would be glad to see an example of a dominant lateral.

[romanus]

Originally Posted by Tams »

can you post a diagram to illustrate your description?

TIA

Examples of all three in the attached.

[gucci]

Originally Posted by romanus »

I note 3 types of laterals: (a) Point 2 to Point 3 movements, (b) post Point 3 movements into the trend, and (c) Point 1 to Point 2 movements [e.g. 15:15 on 7/23]. I suppose, both (b) and (c) can be classified as non-dominant. [As in one thing is dominant entering the lateral and then another thing is dominant exiting the lateral]. Other than their location in the gaussian sequence, I can't think of any other way of differentiating them.

Romanus, how Point 2 to Point 3 movement can be dominant? (in a binary universe of course)

[romanus]

Originally Posted by gucci »

Romanus, how Point 2 to Point 3 movement can be dominant? (in a binary universe of course)

Adding a word 'dominant' or 'non-dominant' in front of the word 'lateral' doesn't change the nature of the lateral formation/movement. I believe it only serves as a way of differentiating various types of laterals. Sort of "vocabulary word" type of deal. However, don't qoute me on this, as there may be a hidden meaning there in the particular choice of words (dominant/non-dominant).

[gucci]

Originally Posted by romanus »

Adding a word 'dominant' or 'non-dominant' in front of the word 'lateral' doesn't change the nature of the lateral formation/movement. I believe it only serves as a way of differentiating various types of laterals. Sort of "vocabulary word" type of deal. However, don't qoute me on this, as there may be a hidden meaning there in the particular choice of words (dominant/non-dominant).

Those "vocabulary words" influence decisions and actions resulting from them. It is kind of important. How would you describe the "nature" of a lateral which comprises the movement of price from point 2 to point 3? What decision (and appropriate action) would result from the aforementioned different description?

[ljyoung]

Romanus is spot on. Don't get hung up on a word. Call them Type I and Type II laterals, remembering that for the purposes of this discussion, ALL laterals must progress through the following structures: Pennant -> Lateral Formation -> "Lateral".

Spyder has said in this thread, we must consider what goes on inside the lateral and to me that means one must answer the questions:

• Where am I in the sequence of the fractal on which I am trading?
• Based on my position in the sequence, WMCN? As has been said many, many times before, WMCN refers to what must come next in the 1,2,3 sequence. That's all it means (and that's enough).
• How did the lateral start?
• What went on as the lateral progressed? This will be more or less important depending on your level of expertise as a trader.

If you know the answers to these questions, you will know the outcome long before it comes to pass and you just wait for the outcome to show itself. There is ZERO prediction involved. We've had a mess o' laterals this AM which illustrate the logic outlined above. This is NOT the only way to say this stuff. Put it in your own words.