ljyoung

It is my understanding that a member must make a certain number of posts before he/she can PM another member without the contents of the PM being available for viewing by the general membership. If this is true, how many posts do I need to satisfy the requirement? TIA lj

I'm talking about fanning from bar 1 to bar 7. Although not shown on the snippet there is a CO RTL which lies below bar 9. There are other considerations which further permit one to consider the possibility that bar 9 is not an ES 5 min P2. lj

The kink I am referring to is a geometric construct composed of collections of parallel lines with angles between sets of parallel lines. You can then draw a another set of parallel lines around those sets of points and lines and construct a tape. There is no argument about the Gaussian series. There is no statement by me intended or implied about anomalies, irregularities or unresolved circumstances with respect to what plays out in the market. lj

This is not Spyder. Let me repeat - this is not Spyder. Question. Why is no attention being paid to the honking big OB at position 7? If you fan the RTL out to include this bar (romanus posted this somewhere else) then bar 9 becomes an 'LTL' bar, not a 'VE' bar though, and definitely not an FTT of any 'expanded, tape-like structure' drawn up to bar 9. Per romanus' take on things, this can't be a P2 of a 5 min ES traverse, IF an LTL bar is to be treated like a VE bar. If it is, then what we have is a muy grande downtape which finally bugs out in the opposite direction at 13:10. FWIW it has been my experiece with Spyder that if everyone on the thread is tearing their hair out in frustration, he will step in. Similarly if someone actually answers one of his questions, he will step in. Otherwise what will usually, but not always happen, is a restatement of the obvious, which in this case means something that was said tens of posts ago. lj

I agree. "Tapes" may have 'kinks' which is what I believe Spyder said in the post following your most recent post. lj

David, It's driving me nutz. The 'dashed line' channels that you have on your snippet, are they drawn using Pepe's tool or something else? If Pepe's tool is the source, how did you do this? Sorry all for the software question. A bit off topic but hopefully perceived as practical. TIA lj

Well put ehorn. If I might add it also hands out detention when we're bad and think that we know more than we really do . lj

Science teaches us (and I'm quite sure the same thing can be said of other disciplines as well) that one sould be appropriately sceptical and avoid pedants. Similarly one learns to be aware and beware of knowledge by decree. There is a singular paucity of such things hereabouts. However, I do not share your need for a definitive source because in reality, IMO, there is no such person. An open mind can always learn from another open mind. As for your second comment, I couldn't agree more. A question for Spyder. Are you aware of situations where the trendline-Gaussian correlation falls apart? lj

It is great to have an active discussion of the method again. It is entirely possible to have a sharp, clear discussion without resorting to things 'pissy and snippy', such as condescension, ad hominems, misrepresentations, etc. It is most frequently the arrogance of ignorance which gives rise to such manoeuvers and as true discussants of the method we are above all that. Romanus' outpourings of the last few days have been very helpful to me (thank you romanus) and I hope everyone else as well. IMO, one creates an appropriate ego by putting it on the line and and building it anew when necessary. This should not be a big deal for anyone, although it does take a little practice to get used to doing it. The reward is new knowledge. Multiple moments of 'doh' will inevitably lead to a fabled 'aha'. If you experience a few 'haha's' at your own expense on the way to the 'aha', that makes it even better. lj

The 'P2' to which you are referring is not a P2 of a 5 min ES traverse as you can verify for yourself by annotating the channels from the prior day. I believe I am correct in saying that when romanus refers to a 'traverse' he is referring to a 5 min ES traverse, what Neoxx has called a 'standard traverse'. Anything faster is a tape or a fat tape or a fasterfractal traverse or a subfractal traverse or a goat or whatever. I know exactly what you are referring to with the "VE" (and "LTL") bounces and BO's but what is being said here, and I believe correctly, is that such bounces and BO's, while tradable, are not bounces and BO's of 5 min ES traverses. lj

As we all know neither romanus nor PointOne are slouches but the example P1 selected to disprove romanus' contention is in error, IMO. This is not to say that either trader is right or wrong. It would help if P1 found a better example to support his notion. lj

I agree with db's sentiment about leaving this thread to its own devices but did suggest one of many possible exit strategies for those who feel the need to express their feelings, thoughts, discomforts, etc. about the merit, lack of merit, complexity, etc. of the method. If I might return to the topic at hand then, a question for Spyder. I read what you have so far formulated with respect to what a Lateral, for the purposes of this discussion, is, as follows. A Lateral is an entity which begins, and must begin, as a Lateral Formation, with bars 2 and 3 inside bar 1, though bar 3 is not necessarily inside bar 2. If bars 2 and 3 are not inside bar 1 then we don't have a Lateral Formation. From bar 4 onwards we have, what is called a Lateral. It may continue to be a Lateral Formation (everything inside bar 1). It may form what used to be called a Lateral Movement with a high or low outside the range of bar 1 but with the close inside bar 1. It may have a high or a low outside bar 1 and then close outside bar 1. The first two examples for bar 4 may continue on with a bar 5, 6, ... and will remain a Lateral until there is a bar which closes outside bar 1 which then gives a situation like the third example immediately above. When a bar closes ouside bar 1, and let's say for this example it is bar 4, then if bar 5 closes back inside bar 1, we still have a Lateral. This also used to be called a Lateral Movement. If however bar 5 closes outside bar 1 then the Lateral is terminated at bar 5. The Lateral extends to the bar on which it is terminated. Your "More" pic validates what has been said above except for the first Lateral which is not extended to include the termination pair. Is this a clerical oversight or is it a decision to group the second bar of the terminating pair with the next bar to form a pennant? TIA (Great to have you back.) lj

It would seem more appropriate to negate the methodology that Spydertrader and others have espoused and are espousing, by providing concrete evidence, in a separate thread, of its abject, nay wretched, failure. Until such time as something like this is actually done, lamentations about lost and/or confused sheep seem nothing more than that. Might I suggest as the title for such a thread something along the lines of "The Fundamental Flaw and yada yada". As best I can ascertain, the focus of this thread is not to defend the method but rather to continue to educate those who wish to continue to be educated in the niceties of the method, by a practitioner of the method with a particular viewpoint of the method and a particular way of instructing those who wish to be so instructed. lj