Because the purpose of both a trend line and a trend channel is to track the trend. If it doesn't do that, it's pointless. I suggest you not try to "learn" anything from that example because it's a poor example to begin with. Focus instead on the six or so charts I posted to show how one arrives at a trade beginning with the weekly.
I don't know how many people are going to try this, but it has nothing to do with trend lines or trend channels, partly because by the time a channel can be drawn, most of the trades are already gone. Therefore, the channel is useless. To a large degree, understanding what these numerals represent is a test of how well one can read from left to right.
If you mean to illustrate that you look at longer time-frames to define levels which might become visible in the trading window, then yes I understand. (Clearly if weekly resistance shows up, it's more likely to be interesting than support from the last hour.) However each time-frame can be trending in opposite directions so I have to assume that you're not using multiple time-frames to filter out directions (à la Elder) which can get disorienting. This thread's name is "if you can draw a straight line", so I assumed straight lines were at the heart of the discussion and thus I focused on them. As for their usefulness, I'm surprised to see you write them off considering the examples found in your SLA-AMT PDF, but regardless, so far I'm seeing value in them so they're part of my own experiments. I'm fishing for slower moves than what seems to be popular here though, in a given view. (i.e. if you see 3-6 trades in that sample 1-minute chart, in essence we're not on the same time-frame. As a novice, I like the big obvious stuff. )
The purpose of the line is to track trend, i.e., the balance between demand and supply. However, a great many people obsess over the lines just as they do moving averages and Fib levels, expecting the lines to deliver something they were never intended to deliver. In short, the "heart of the discussion" is tracking the balance between supply and demand, not drawing lines. I hope I have made this clear in the pdf. If I haven't, then I defer to Wyckoff, who makes the tracking of the demand/supply balance the basis of his course, along with judging the market by its own action. You'll notice there are no lines in Section 7.
There actually are at least a couple, but they're just discussed as adjunct confirmations and indeed not drawn explicitly on the charts.
On price alone, seems pretty straightforward to me except for 3 and 5 where I don't see anything significant and thus look forward to your commentary.
Given your own view that bars are arbitrary groupings of a continuous flow of transactions, I'm sure you can understand that someone might look for broader signs of behavior in a given view. I have little interest in entering a position every 5-10 bars in any view; that's just too crowded for me. Even Wyckoff in that Section 7 isn't nearly that hyperactive on daily bars and holds most of his positions for a few months. If I look for more minute signs of behavior, I can see more than my single one of course, though still not as many as you're describing I think. You'd probably see something closer to what I see if you viewed that same period with 5-minute bars. Back on point though, (this is about your method and I'm straying from that, sorry!) I see quite a lot of lines in that PDF's first section so I'm getting very interested to see how you'll narrate that demo chart and where that half-dozen+ trades will logically fall into place according to said protocol.
The principles are the same regardless of the bar interval. Naturally there are more opportunities on a 1t chart than on a weekly chart, but the protocol is the same (you'll recall that the pdf uses 60m bars). If someone wants a broader view, he should trade a larger interval. The only reason I chose the 1m was due to the question asked about the 1m YM. Otherwise, all this belongs in the Intraday Thread.