Iterative Refinement

[nkhoi]

Quote from gravitonium77:

I wish to have something clarified on this chart which Spydertrader posted:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2008336

The area labeled "Lateral Movement", is actually a lateral formation along with a FFBO (formation failed b/o)....

Lateral Formations have subsequent bars entirely inside the forming bar (highs less than or equal to the upper boundary & lows equal to or greater than the lower boundary).

Lateral Movement has all the subsequent closes inside the forming bar (equal to or greater than the lower boundary and equal to or less than the upper boundary).

- Spydertrader

 

[treeline]

Quote from gravitonium77:

I wish to have something clarified on this chart which Spydertrader posted:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2008336

The area labeled "Lateral Movement", is actually a lateral formation along with a FFBO (formation failed b/o). In the past, Spyder has specified that differences which exist between LM and LF and assist in seeing the sequences. Now, it appears as though no differences exist, as one is being labeled as the other.

Was the labeling an error? Something else?

The 6th and 7th bars in the chart snippet created a SP. This became a LF on Bar 8. Bar 9 FBO'd the LF, creating LM. The LM ended on Bar 12 with a LM BO.

 

[Jander]

Quote from Spydertrader:

Then, at your current skill set, these annotations would not represent traverses as they do not have the necessary components required for you to 'see' them as such.

- Spydertrader

Thank you Spydertrader

Things are coming together, mental block going away. I really appreciate your patience

 

[gravitonium77]

Quote from ticktrade:

Quote from gravitonium77:
"The area labeled "Lateral Movement", is actually a lateral formation "


Lateral formations contain all bars. Does this lateral contain all bars?
Bar 4 exceeds the high of bar 1, changing it from a lateral formation to lateral movement

I invite you to look again. A Lateral Formation, as defined by Spydertrader DID form. We had a wide range bar, followed by two bars contained within the range of the wide range bar. That IS a lateral formation.

Then, as Spydertrader has defined before, that lateral formation experienced a formation failed break out.

If you prefer, let me rephrase the question: why is the lateral formation NOT annotated. In real time, as each bar closes, a LF would have been annotated. As annotation, time and again is stressed to be done correctly, I'm trying to understand why/if Spydertrader annotated the way he did.

 

[tobbe]

Quote from Spydertrader:
...
As such, I recommend focusing on one fractal and locating the sequences which exist across all examples of the same fractal, and once located (and understood), one can then replicate that same template across all fractals.
...

Thank you, Spydertrader. Makes perfect sense.

 

[romanus]

Quote from gravitonium77:

I invite you to look again. A Lateral Formation, as defined by Spydertrader DID form.

It may be a good idea to post a link to what you believe to be a Spydertrader's definition according to which a Lateral Formation exists there. That way anybody who is able and willing to participate does not have to go through 74 posts, where words Lateral and Formation are mentioned by Spydertrader to locate that piece of data that may be helpful.

It was not meant to be sarcastic, I simply remember one of the posters creating a picture detailing bar combinations leading to various combinations which follow the pennant, I just don't remember specifically where it is.

 

[R/R]

Quote from gravitonium77:

I invite you to look again. A Lateral Formation, as defined by Spydertrader DID form. We had a wide range bar, followed by two bars contained within the range of the wide range bar. That IS a lateral formation.

Then, as Spydertrader has defined before, that lateral formation experienced a formation failed break out.

If you prefer, let me rephrase the question: why is the lateral formation NOT annotated. In real time, as each bar closes, a LF would have been annotated. As annotation, time and again is stressed to be done correctly, I'm trying to understand why/if Spydertrader annotated the way he did.

As ticktrade said in your quote: "Bar 4 exceeds the high of bar 1, changing it from a lateral formation to lateral movement". It ended in a LM and that is the way it was labeled by Spyder.

So it transitioned from a Sym Pennant to a Lateral Formation, then to a Lateral Movement at the point of the FFBO. You both are saying the same thing.

 

[TIKITRADER]

Quote from romanus:


I simply remember one of the posters creating a picture detailing bar combinations leading to various combinations which follow the pennant, I just don't remember specifically where it is.

I think it was bi9foot in the Futures journal, I will see if I can find it.

 

[romanus]

Quote from R/R:

As ticktrade said in your quote: "Bar 4 exceeds the high of bar 1, changing it from a lateral formation to lateral movement". It ended in a LM and that is the way it was labeled by Spyder.

So it transitioned from a Sym Pennant to a Lateral Formation, then to a Lateral Movement at the point of the FFBO. You both are saying the same thing.

QFT
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1664433#post1664433

 

[TIKITRADER]

This is the links to internal fomations from Futures journal:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...ghlight=spydertrader september&pagenumber=888

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...ghlight=spydertrader september&pagenumber=886

Still looking for that post.