This particular pattern became invalid, however, it opened the door for the current pattern that this pair is reacting to shown below
looking at the attached chart, i just wanted to get every1s views on symmety.the pattern im referring to is the gartley sell pattern illustrated b the dashed lines. i notied this pattern forming around 11pm GMT. however, by the time the pattern completed and actually woud hae triggered the trade, the symmetry in the pattern would have been negated.
what i would like to know is, how many of you would still trade this pattern at the D point between 8-9am? and what signals does one look out for with regards to symmetry and its effect on pattern trading?
Many Thanks
heres another example of symetry in a trade. the attached chart below is of the current USD/CAD H1. as opposed to the earlier example, this one completed way before schedule. it seems as though price bounced off the fib and is heading south. still hasn’t hit target 1…
what i would like to know is, would the entry at the 12pm candle have been acceptable even though it would have messed up the symmetry?
Cheers guys!
Looks as if a bearish gartley just formed on EURUSD 10minute chart, too bad I missed it. Easy 20-30 pips.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will refer you to post I made in the beginning of this month:
Apart from the consistent flow of buyers and sellers illustrated by the chart above, you should always look for convergence between the XA fibs and the CD projections. In addition, your BC leg must always be at least a .382 retracement anything less is an automatic signal for lack of symmetry within the market (indicates a lack of sellers or buyers depending on the direction).
*Note: A .382 retracement of the BC leg gives the CD an 80% chance of reaching the extension levels (127% - 261%) before a bounce. As a result if I have multiple convergences within a chart, where 100% and 127% CD have convergence with their respective fibs and my BC leg is a .382 retracement then I will take the 127% CD trade and avoid the 100%.
thaks for the reply TMB, i take it you would have taken the pattern on if there was evidence of continuous patterns in the particular pair through the short term period? i recall you saying that if the pattern doesnt look symmetrical you scan through past data to see if there are continuous patterns forming over the pair to the point where the unsymmetrical pattern forms?
cheers mate
I suggest you read my edited notes on the bottom of the chart from the previous reply. Also, I don’t trade pairs like the USD/CAD since they fake out a lot and disrespect the fib levels (both patterns you showed closed above the fib entry indicating failure, so I would have had a loss in both cases).
TMB, thanks for this awesome thread.
I’ve been going over this for a little while now and have started seeing patterns. Something came up, that I’d like to ask.
I know you said to try and always use the first swing for your AB leg, but what about your BC leg:
When charting a gartley, and your BC leg looks to have formed and then starts heading to the target at D, if it reverses and go back past the C and hasn’t yet crossed the A do you use the original BC leg because the pattern is still valid or do you change your BC leg to the new low?
IF I’m looking at this right on the EUR/USD it has done that right now. Again that is if I’m see the Gartley correct in the first place.
when you refer to the 80% chance of the CD leg extending to the 1.272 levels and beyond if the BC leg retraces .382%… is it correct to say that applies to BC retracements between .382 - .500%
also, if the BC leg retraces <.500 but there is no convergence above 100% of XA, however there is convergenece below the 100%, would you still trade this as a gatley?
thanks mate
im no expert but you should change your BC leg. iv attached a chart using the same X point as u… as you can see there is now convergence at the 100% and 1.272% of CD. thats as much as my experience tells me, although i think the theory states that gartley patterns are more inclined to forming D points at the .618 and .786 of the XA leg.and as you can see the .618 of XA converges with the 1.272 of AD.
i guess we’l tell if thats right in the next wuut… 10 hours?! :rolleyes:
- edit: i projected to the 1.000 as opposed to the 1.272, but yea, i feel it has more chance of convergig at the higher level you see on the chart!
I’m getting confused here:confused:
If I’m looking to find where “D” lands, how can 1.272 of AD land on .618 of XA when I don’t even know where “D” is?
soooo confused right now.
Any BC leg between the .236-382 has an 80% chance of reaching the extensions of CD (if price does not reach the .500 but closes bellow the .382 then yes you can use the same logic). As for your second question, I believe your asking if I will trade the pattern anyways if my only convergence option is the 100% CD. The answer is NO, I would simply move on to another chart with better opportunities and not run the risk of “losing my shirt”.
Thanks TMB, I’ve watched these a number of times. Great job and thank you very much for them.
My original question was:
I know you said to try and always use the first swing for your AB leg, but what about your BC leg:
When charting a gartley, and your BC leg looks to have formed and then starts heading to the target at D, if it reverses and go back past the C and hasn’t yet crossed the A do you use the original BC leg because the pattern is still valid or do you change your BC leg to the new low?
As I understand it, to find your D point you take your AB leg and put it on point C and from 1.000 on up find the fib that lands on your XA fib and that should be your D. Is this correct?
Then back to the question you’d be moving your C and thus changing the potental of where D is to land if it converges with an XA fib at all.
Being that I can’t get a picture posted large enough for anyone to see, i’ll explain what I’m looking at on the EUR/USD on the 1hr time:
Points:
X is on 1.2920 (8/18 13:00)
A at 1.2586 (8/24 13:00)
B at 1.2718 (8/24 15:00)
C at 1.2615 (8/24 22:00)
Projecting D at 1.2881 which is 2.000 of CD and 88.6 of XA (within a pip of each other)
To me that one seems to be the closest to what would be convergance.
Other possible targets would be:
1.000 of CD and .500 of XA within 5 pips of each other
1.272 of CD and .618 of XA within 8 pips of each other
I’m guessing I’d want to go for the one with the best convergance.
Does the 100% of BA have to converge with the 50% (when looking for the D) of XA to be a gartley? or can D converge around 61.2?
like so:
Another potential gartley with D ending around the 1.2750 area?
img801.imageshack.us/img801/7894/potentalgartley0825.png
Edit , I didn’t even see Belz post. I think the 200% convergence would work best as well, but keep eye out for 50-200%.
Are you going to go long then short it, or short at the top?
I noticed that one too. See post above.
So I guess it has to be perfect convergence then?
img529.imageshack.us/img529/1028/potentalgartley082560mi.png
I spotted this as it happened last night, I should of shorted at 2715 and made myself 100 pips, blah lol.