Quote:
Originally Posted by 4xStar
Question: when there are breaks in the current triangle, do you re-draw the triangle to include those? i.e. on UJ, a new triangle could be drawn taking into consideration the highs and lows that broke out of the previous triangle.
At what point does a triangle become invalid or supersceded by new price action?
|
That will depend on the break: it's depth, duration; and quantity of breaks. There are several ways to measure the quality of a pattern, including clarity, which is a measure of how closely the pattern adheres to its definition. For a symmetrical triangle, clarity is reduced if in the midst of lower highs and higher lows, an errant higher high or lower low pops out.
But, that doesn't negate the pattern, necessarily: it could simply mean there's an ineffectual fluke in an otherwise valid pattern. How price behaves after will be the determining factor. But did I take the short when price appeared to have broken the triangle? No, because at the break constituted the second touch for the lower trendline, and the second touch for the upper trendline didn't occur until after; so there was no triangle at that point.
Sometimes I will redraw: if for example I draw close to close and it later becomes apparent that low to low or high to high is a more accurate rendering of the range the pair is moving in, I'll switch. In the case of the U/J triangle, the closes reduce clarity, while the lows and highs enhance it. There's a bit of interpretive wiggle room here, maybe, but if a pattern is there, it is there, whether it's closes or highs/lows. If someone was concerned about playing pattern breakouts conservatively (i.e. with the most assurance they can get that the break IS occurring), I would advise them to place their stop/limit orders with reference to the highs/lows.
Any pattern becomes invalid when its clarity is ruined : a breakout ruins clarity: a higher high and a lower low ruins a symmetrical triangle's clarity. Price sometimes wanders out of clear patterns during times of low volume because of a lack of momentum: this can ruin clarity.
When clarity is disrupted, I may keep one line from the busted pattern around. On an upside break from a symmetrical triangle for example, the top trendline is toast, but the bottom trendline is still valid support that has not be negated. Nevertheless, clarity is gone, so the pattern is now irrelevant.
Also, consider that patterns can exist inside patterns: a descending triangle can exist within a symmetrical triangle on a shorter TF, etc. These micro-patterns can give clues to larger breakouts, or can hint at reversal points within the range of a larger, consolidating pattern.