Thanks for your input, I guess I have some more learning to do. I was taking my bias from the lower low that has taken place and was watching for a possible reversal of the up trend in place by a lower high to form. I’m probably still in the mindset of anticipating where price would go and probably need to get rid of these ideas and surrender to price.
Many thanks again. Still subscribed.
John
It’s not that you shouldn’t anticipate where price will go, it just should be from a perspective of what your decision making should be if price gets there.
Meaning don’t trade on that type of anticipation prior to the move. Plan your trade if price has done what you anticipated it to do.
You will be wrong either way often, but it will help you create your edge.
Mastergunner, I like your trade style because I think it’s very logical, Moreover, I think that you get past all of the business that some of us (me) get caught up in regarding very short term trades. To be honest, because I look at a chart from swing to swing and I know that Fibonacci retracements happen, I’m tempted to start using your approach but am thinking of applying it to larger retracements for entries. I find bias, money managment (usually), etc to be much easier than trade entry, because I wind up parlyzed from the analysis at times.
What I mean is, if the market was moving down, and I fib the top to bottom A to B and see the market reaching up to C which is a retracement between 62-70, and my bias is still bearish around 79%, does it make sense to enter the market when I see a couple of good bear candles formed that start working there way back down through the key levels. Netdania on my other screen is showing the USD/CHF pair which prompted the question, that is around 62%. My brain is a little tired with it being Friday, and what I’m trying to get at is understanding the various methodolgies I’d want to use for entries at different Fib levels.
Yes. I’d wait for some good downward movement first.
Bias, [B]for me now[/B] (each of us has our own definition), is anticipating where I believe price is likely to go in the subjectively-defined “intermediate-term” based on some confirmation signal (remember, it’s a numbers/probabilities game). This holds for any pair based on a daily chart, with the confirmation signal primarily, as learned from MasterGunner, a trending closing-bar usually beyond some horizontal Support/Resistance, either past or Fibonacci levels (or, ideally, both if they’re proximate – kind of a confluence/synergy-thing).
I wasn’t consciously aware of what constituted my bias until MasterGunner asked me to describe it – how I determined it – which forced me to identify it objectively in writing (here, near the bottom of the post, if you’re interested). Then, I asked MasterGunner how he determined his, and he replied here.
Each of us likely possesses different biases when it comes to our analyses, which may change fluidly throughout time and experience. So, ask yourself (and feel free to answer here if you wish and/or think it will help): how do you determine your bias for any pair in general?
[And if you’re not sure, pick something that feels comfortable based on your experiences and trade using that in a Demo Account to see how it performs over a good chunk of time and whether you might need to modify it in some way. It will be interesting to see what role, and significance if any (I suspect quite a bit), Bias plays in his Edge when MasterGunner writes his forthcoming post on that topic.]
[Balentine’s Day bean berry, berry, bad to me … ;)]
Following are my Demo Trading results so far, beginning this week using the [B]MasterGunner99 Methodology®[/B] (MG99M) with an initial DEMO Account balance = $20,000.
[My, what a difference a day makes; virtually all open positions (12 pairs total) reversed/retraced to some degree overnight.]
Two mistakes made (and from which I’ve learned) stand out in the following table:
(1) my only CLOSED trade was an AUDUSD Short initiated against my bias – which was reversed to a Long the next day (for a 100-pip loss); and
(2) I’d forgotten after my four initial trades on Feb 12 (position size = 20,000) to trade a position size equivalent to my total equity (closed balance + open equity) – which I began to do yesterday with my lone Feb 15 trade: NZDCHF Long.
Total Equity = $22,023 (110% of initial balance); Total CLOSE Pips = -0100
_Open Equity = $ 2,223 ( 11% of _CLOSED balance); Total _Open Pips = +0475
[NOTE: I suspect those equity values in the last two lines are from the Beginning of Day (BOD), and not the End of Day (EOD) for 2/14 – and thus significantly inflated; TradeStation’s platform for Forex is sorely lacking …]
No new trade orders initiated today …
I agree with you in that this is the cost of doing business, but all successful businesses in bad times look to cut costs. I guess the difference is my whole strategy is long term based, so the swap does make a difference whereas it appears that if you aggregated the total swap cost as a proportion of your total gained amount, it seems it is not significant.
I am with them as well and hence I know the swap charge would have been significantly less. The capital spreads account is fully mobile and my preferred account but 2 weeks into that trade, they changed their swap charges. So now I use their 3 month future rates which have no swap charges but a fixed spread of 8 pips for GBPUSD. For me to get completely comfortable with making Alpari UK my primary account, I would need to have MT4 setup on a VPS accessible from any workstation, laptop or mobile device and that’s way down my priority list at the moment. Thanks for the advice.
Sir, I like and respect the cut of your jib.
I look forward to sitting in your class.
I have re-visited the posts as you suggested and carefully read both. I suppose my bias is somewhat mixed as I generally see both long and short term biases together. I think you may have something in your definition, perhaps I need to do as you suggest.
I think my bias would probably be to look for price to follow the long term trend initially unless the shorter term trend suggests otherwise. By this I mean, if the longer term trend is bullish and price retraces a reasonable amount and then comes back up and does not take out the recent high of the longer term trend I would then look for price to confirm a new down trend by watching if it takes out the low just made. Reverse for downtrend. (This may ultimately be just another longer term retracement in the end though).
This was the case of my previous post and still is my view until price actually tells me which way it is now going to go by way of the candles.
My problem with determining bias so far has been that when price moves up quite a bit say, I am always thinking there will be a turn here somewhere as it looks ‘toppy’ and perhaps my thought processes need to be amended to not pre-judge what I think price will do and to let price tell me what it is going to do.
Apologies for labouring a point, but I think it is an important part of trading to get right.
Agreed. We may not be right even 50% of the time with our bias, but still be profitable. Another way I think of bias is that it favors higher-probability setups and keeps us out of (filters out) lower-probability ones.
As to your comment about price looking ‘toppy’ and your natural (probably contrarian) inclination to expect a reversal, I think that’s what many refer to as “counter-trend” trading – which is a difficult proposition, sort of liking trying to pick tops and bottoms.
It sounds like you’ve got the gist of the methodology: letting price tell you what it’s going to do vis-à-vis a big move, knowing that you may be wrong – or faked out – likely half the time. [For example, you can be right only 40% of the time, but if your Reward:Risk ratio is 2.5, you’re still going to be quite profitable.]
Uhm I had so good expecations in this topic… 
It’s just another (good) technical analysis topic in the end.
Don’t take it as a criticism, is just that, from how it started, I was hoping in a high theoretical topic and way of managing portfolio.
@MG: have you conducted further theoretical analysis on the fx market? I refer to optimal risky portfolio: correlation ρ (pearson) among pairs, CAL (Sharpe ratio) etc etc? I’d be interested in viewing that work or, if you didn’t do it, I’d be happy to help you building it, if you want.
let me know 
Just to see if I have a reasonable grasp of the methodology, all critique welcome.
Price is in a downtrend, and retraced to previous support, now acting as resistance at the 61.8% fib which appears to be holding. I will be looking to short if price closes below the 38.2% fib line with bearish confirmation, which appears to be holding as support. If price manages to rise above the 61.8% fib level with appropriate bullish confirmation, I would look to buy as my alternative.
Sorry to disappoint. Whatever you can add, I am open to hearing.
I obviously can’t speak for MasterGunner, so will be interested in what he says if he comments.
My first attempt at this was last Sunday, where I posted 11 analyses of different pairs (intent on doing all 28 before being interrrupted), and I did exactly the same thing (within my “[B]Action[/B]” paragraphs): despite declaring a “[B]Bias[/B]”, I looked to bracket the current price level – looking to go long if it closed above point A or go short if it closed below point B. [My first trade was against my bias, and turned out to be a mistake – which is when MasterGunner noted that he never trades against his bias.]
So, my bias (I think MasterGunner’s right now, and I suspect yours) on USDCHF is bearish. If that’s so, I’d say only look right now for a signal to go short – and the one you stated is reasonable (we’ll all have different thoughts on that, but mine is the same as yours: looking for a close below the 38.2% retracement). [If your bias is in fact Long, then your signal looking for a close above 61.8% seems reasonable and probably what I’d do; MasterGunner often waits a little longer for further confirmation, I believe.]
Next, I’d say ask yourself what would price have to do to change your bias to None (Indeterminate – like I’m nearly at right now on all pairs involving the JPY, although still bearish for the moment) or even change it to the opposite. I’d say: only if your bias changes on this pair, then look for a signal to go that way. It’s entirely conceivable that, for you, a close above/below the 61.8%/38.2% retracement does both: (1) changes your bias completely (although that seemingly would be a pretty weak initial bias) and (2) signals an entry in that direction.
That’s my understanding at this point anyway; I hope it helps clarify things a little. I have a sense that [U]MasterGunner is more patient than we are[/U] (something I’m going to be working on), and likes to wait maybe an extra bar or more for further confirmation before Entry depending, of course, on the Price and Chart Patterns as they present themselves and his interpretation of them.
Respectfully… documented results using this approach and how you yourself have used it… in theory.
That’s one that comes to mind.
sstrnod,
interesting to read your comments. Have a question - have you be able to complete analyses of all 28 pairs? What is your findings or leanings? Are you going continue to share your analyses?
Thanks in advance,
Beginer
Well I just proposed it in my post 
I’d be interested in building an exact correlation among pairs, to start with
You might not need to do the leg work. Others have already done that and you should he able to readily find the results online.
The question is, assuming accurate data, how would that adjust the current methodology to further the existing edge. As it stands, it would seem that price action itself encompasses the expected results of correlation.
You are spot on.
USDCHF needs to drop first for a day or possibly two before I get on board.
If it continues up, my bias is likely to change. Though I wouldn’t necessarily be looking to get in a trade right away.
