Thanks for the chart. It’s a little hard to see, any chance of getting a better resolution pic uploaded? I normally just copy to clipboard and save the image as a .gif… That seems to work quite well for this site and people can zoom in without it getting blurry.
With regards to using trailing stops, I know what you mean! It’s painful to see your intended target eventually get hit, only after hitting your stop! The problem I had with only using targets, is that it becomes ‘all or nothing’, sometimes you hit say 90% of your target and then you get a reversal, it’s hard to see that profit disappear.
After reading this thread, and I think I am mimicking what TMB is doing, but not absolutely sure, the following method seems to work well for me…
Enter trade at the most opportune moment and set a sl either around five-10 pips below, or if it is a volatile pair, just below the last swing point.
Wait for say 20 pip profit and move the sl up to the entry point or break even point (if you pay comms)
Keep moving the stop loss up the fib levels as they CLOSE past each level…
If you get stopped premeturely, get back in ASAP at the next opportune momen, if conditions are still valid.
This seems to work well for me… You will need to adjust this for each pair in accordance to the volatility you get.
I save my screen shots, with ABBYY Screenshot Reader, to PNG format. Babypips seems to convert to JPG. Some resolution is lost, although still looks ok if you magnify uusing CTRL+.
Attached is another image, maybe better, maybe not. I can send you the original if you like. I’ll add an email address to my profile
Fairfly new to forex, trying to learn this method and am working through this thread. I was wondering if someone who had experience with these patterns could verify if Ive spotted this correctly. The 127.2 fibs converge nicely. This could not have formed into a gartley because the minimum 100% of AB would have made the D point greater than X? Correct?
Also, I got the book. Am I correct that TMB takes the butterfly patterns a step further and looks for convergence of the the fib levels of both swings? whereas the author of the book only looks for extension of XA for the D point.
I agree the pattern isn’t a gartley, but seems to be a great butterfly, right? Im only on the ipad so cant really fully analyse this pattern, it looks good though.
The only comment I’d make is that there isn’t much symmetry there, but because of the strong convergence, id take this sort of trade and put in a tight sl, In case it shoots right past the predicted reversal point. Also note the strong upward movement in price towards D, there may have been a good chance you could have got an overshoot. However, with strong convergence like that, I’d take the chance on this personally…
I thought the book and tmb’s method were the same, but TMB shows how to use fibs much more effectively, for me anyways!
I must be missing something, why do you think they are different?
Thanks for that. Yep, I missed that step out, I do have to save it then upload… But I do that so I can reuse it. If my charts are not clear, please let me know, I’ll use an alternative…
Thanks for the quick reply. The reason I said TMB and the books methods where differant were because in the book, the author only looks for extensions of 1.272,1.618 of the XA whereas TMB looks for convergence of two fibs typically at 1.272 and 1.618. Simply put TMB uses fibs more effectively.
The only comment I’d make is that there isn’t much symmetry there
I am confused as to what qualifies as symmetry. Can you give what defines symmetry for you. Is it simply the number of bars and slopes? Looking at many of TMB setups, there didnt seem to be any symmetry at all.
I started to read this thread and found it fascinating. After making my homework and reading a bit about gartleys here is my first set up. Please correct me if Im wrong. I draw the D at this point beacuse it converges nicely with the 1.272 fib level of the AB leg. Any thoughts?
The 1.27 Fib Level of the XA leg converges so (5 Pips) with the 1.27 Fib level of the CD leg, so we can wait for a reaction near this zone, however the 1.618 Fib level of the XA matches almost perfectly with the 1.618 Fib level of the CD leg, tha would be the entry for me. Anyways I’d like to know if this is a correct way of drawing this patterns, I mean using levels beyond the 1.0 of the CD leg?
