Defiance,
Thanks for looking at my graph. I’m still a work in progress.
I’m not quite sure where you got the 78.6% of the XA to be a valid Gartley. Isn’t AB=CD?
I’m also curious if the pattern continues through the open.
in that post i quoted …your AB = CD would roughly = the 78.6% fib.
in other words your AB = CD converges with the 78.6% of XA so that is where you would expect D to land.
Hi All,
Do babypips.com or it’s members offer recommendations about a highly-probable direction of a currency pair, say for
the next 6-12-24 hours, in other works are there any tips for it’s members ??
God bless
upon closer inspection of your graph it appears to me you are not drawing your Gartleys manually but are instead using the Zup indicator for MT4 or something similar. If you want to use the Zup indicator to find your gartleys I suggest you google it and go to a thread and ask for advice there where the people there are specialized in using it. I do not think anyone in this thread uses Zup.
thank you…
I got a bit confused when you said he did it the other way around so i watched the video again. He draws a fib from A->B to get the C retracement. Thereafter he draws a fib from B->A and moves it to C. 
To be honest i cannot answer your question about the D. There are so many ways out there and none seem to be right or wrong. TMB has a new approach to old stuff. What i recognized when using TMB’s method with convergences was that the bounce of the convergences (the move up or down counter trend) were much smaller then the ones produced by the original patterns that i posted where for example the D of a gartley always is at the 78,6% or the D of a bat always is 88,6%.
These produce a lot bigger movement and since i always aim to use physical stop losses to remove emotions from my trading i can keep my R:R ration up that way since my stop is above X.
Please, TMB correct me if i’m wrong about something but thats what i’ve come up with so far, observing, drawing and trading these patterns.
Interesting question and funny that you bring that up since i was looking at the same thing yesterday. At the moment i am sick in bed but i will definitely continue when i’m feeling better.
One difference is that D always forms at the 0.786 lvl of X->C in a cypher pattern.
On a shark pattern i have no idea how to know in advance when C will form where you can enter the trade. Thats another difference. You enter your trade into the C to D movement instead of entering at the D. Normally after a shark pattern a bat pattern will form since D mostly is a 50% retracement of B->C.
Another big difference is that in the shark pattern B is an 1.13 to 1.618 extension of 0->X and in a gartley C is always a 1.272 extension of X->A.
Shark pattern:
Cypher pattern:
I will do some backtesting on the shark pattern when time permits. I’ve heard it’s really accurate in predicting price movement (up to 80%). But i want to see that for myself.
I do notice on page two of this thread there is a long post by TMB where he describes the common retracement D points of 5 - 10 pairs, and for some of them D was landing on the 50%, and some the 78.6%, and i cant remember if there were much landing on the 61.8%, but it seems to me that perhaps D’s can on either the 50%, 61.8% or the 78.6% and what it is most likely to land on will probably depends on that individual pair as many pairs have a tendency for D’s to hit on certain levels.
what have been doing for the last week or so, is each pattern i see or trade, i will draw fibs in and take a screenshot, so slowly i am building up a bit of knowledge over the individual pairs retracement levels.
If you are using an indicator to find patterns I suggest that you let it go immediately and start training your eyes to see them. The best computer is the human brain ;).
For one, I always check to see if B has a minimum retracement of .382 fib (because it tells you whether a market will be symmetrical or not) and if it does not reach the .500 fib you are automatically given an 80% chance to reach 127% CD and the extension levels. As for the patterns I trade producing smaller amounts of profit then the ones you are currently trading… I highly doubt that. All gartleys/butterflies/cyphers or w/e name you want to place on the harmonic patterns has a 70% chance of reaching the .618, .707, .786, .886 levels depending on the market you are trading and its “favored” fib or avg retracement level. I believe the key difference that you are noting in your trades is that you are being more selective in the patterns that you chose and using the standard way of identifying these patterns forces you to only trade symmetrical markets, which is a good thing. As for my method of convergence, I believe you have the idea of convergence completely misunderstood… convergence simply means that you find multiple support resistance zones within a price range; which can come from multiple trendlines (diagonal or horizontal), pivot points, sma, rsi, fibs, d points, etc… trading without additional confirmation and solely relying on the uniform of a pattern is very risky and can find you in big trouble in certain months where most d points begin to fail patriotically when they do not have additional confirming factors.
how do we calculate 0.786 or 0.886 ?
It is the 0.786, 0.886 retracement of XA, if you talking about D point.
Normally, I dont trade on Sunday, but I cant leave this trade away. A perfect pattern upon the market open.
I got stop out once at 34 pips in favor since it move down 27 pips (cause of moving stop loss up). But re-enter again, and in favor of 30 more pips again.
Hey TMB, just wanted to know your thoughts on gaps? Like the ones on opening. Can you treat it as a regular leg or is it better to let fill/work its self out before looking for patterns? BTW really digging the thread.
From trade what you see book, gaps normally cause the pattern to fail, and lead to the extreme D, so trade with caution.
EJ 4 HR BAT PATTERN Nearly on completion.
Made already +40 pips C to D
Another +20 pips towards D
Total +60 pips in total until now
I have taken base as 8 MVA not the extreme X.
That’s awesome. Way to bank a few pips and take the rest of the day off!
Since reading this forum I’m now making much better decisions on my trades.
Yeah i totally agree with you. And another reason for me sticking to the “old fashion” way of identifying patterns is because i’m in need of physical stops and profit targets as i am not able to watch my trades. When trading your method i tried like you may remember a SL and TP of 30 pips with a R:R of 1:1 but i got stopped out all the time. Thereafter i tried to be more conservative and used only 20 pips as SL and TP but even then i got stopped out a lot.
Trading these patterns allows me to place my SL above X which also acts as a safety net if D is not respected as intended.
I would love trade the way you do since i really like your approach to the market. But as long as i have a full time job it won’t be possible since i don’t think it’s possible to trade your way using only physical stops and take profit points. But when the day comes and i make the transition to being a full time trader i will definitely try to implement more of your style into my trading.
And no, i fully understand your method with convergences and MSRT lines. The more fib levels and trend lines that meet at a certain price level the stronger the resistance/support at that price will be. I’ve even played around with Fibonacci clusters myself and it worked pretty good. But i need to do more backtesting on that. What it’s all about is to try and find a trade with the highest probability of success. And each confirmation we get raises that probability. Then of course the market sometimes will not respect anything and just go wild. But as long as one takes all trades with a statistically high probability of success and a good R:R ratio one should be able to make a good living as a trader. It’s like with all businesses, cut the risk and cost and raise the income as much as possible. If you succeed with that you can be successful no matter what you do.
And i do not trade on pattern formations only without any other confirmation. What i mostly look for when looking for confirmation is a RSI divergence or previous structure (resistance/support) at the same level of D. In most cases (not finished with my backtesting) there is a RSI divergence when D is about to form which i find very interesting.
