Peikoff as opposed to Nathaniel Branden? Good analogy. Once he finished his last refinement, I'm not sure Spydertrader ever spoke again publicly on the subject of the JH method.
OK, here are some examples of sequences that "completed" too soon. May 13th bar1 ended after a possible P2 up. It also occurred on a pkv. But look at bar 62 on the previous day (same chart)...it too looks like it could be ending on a pkv. Maybe they were both pkv?! May 14 opening bar advances down leading to what could be developing a P2 down. Then its over and a sequence up begins. And another example of implied irv could occur the same morning somewhere between bar 10 and bar 14.
There are two stumbling blocks you might be creating for yourself. 1. I don't understand your hypothesis regarding laterals. What are the rules you've made whether to disregard laterals or not? How do you know as they are forming whether to disregard them or not? Have you tested these parameters and found them consistent with reality every single time? 2. You're mixing fractals and disregarding their nesting. Dominant moves are either from P1 to P2 or P3 to FTT/VE. Separate those and the volume behavior they consist of into two batches when you study them. Also, BBT 1 isn't contained within a Tape yet, but BBT 3 is, so with BBT 3's you have to make sure to account for both sets of FTT's which isn't a consideration for BBT 1's.
1. The rule is that an FTT ends a lateral. I may have misunderstood a remark Spydertrader made that it wasn't necessary to carryover the lateral into the new sequence. I cant find it, of course. Perhaps it was a different context. 2. This will require some thought. I know my taping is different from what you are doing. My taping is based on a JH post where I understood him to indicate that the initial rtl begins as described in the 7 cases and continues until there are 2 closes outside, which constitutes the bbt2, then the next surge begins the bbt3 and you now have the rtl of tape 1. This was the basis of the entire system, as I understood him to say. I will try to perceive it as you describe, which will admittedly be a challenge, and see if that sheds new light.
Just to underline, I want to make it clear that you shouldn't take my word for it, or Spyder's or Jack's. The whole key to learning this system isn't laying out 100x rules for every contextual circumstance imo, it's learning how to conduct logical tests in order to build a consistent annotation procedure. If you ever see a container with full volume sequence end with an FTT that forms a lateral and then continues onward, you must discard your current theory on laterals no matter what Spydertrader or anyone else said, or at least modify it. Take the basic principles and apply them to reality. Discard and modify the ones that the market disproves. If I were you I would start with analyzing your basic taping. You've taken volume entirely out of consideration, which is the most essential variable of this entire system imo. Also, see attached example. I've applied your taping logic in the post as I've understood it to this hypothetical situation. How can two closes outside the initial rtl of the tape constitute a bbt 2 when there hasn't even been a change in dominance on the smallest visible fractal? Remember to be specific in your definitions and test your conclusions against the objective reality we are able to observe in the markets every day, making continual refinements.
I appreciate the logic of what you are saying. In your miscExample I would expect that if this was ibv to dbv to ibv I would begin to look for a retrace to occur. And the retrace would expect to be the p2-p3 of the tape. I obviously misspoke because what I said couldn't be right. I will re-tape the same fragment using volume sequences and see if that helps.