Bullish Gartley - D leg on its way to Completion

FX:AUDUSD   Australian Dollar/U.S. Dollar
Bullish Gartley - D leg on its way to Completion
D is a 1.27ext of A-B, which - in an ideal gartley lines up with the 786ret of X-A, this one simply reaches a little lower but is still valid. the internet provides plenty of useful information in regards to pattern recognition and the validating factors, should you wish to take a look.. Sandeep the A-B Retracement is a Minimum 61.8 - but no deeper than 78.6 - anywhere in there is generally OK
dojitrader David.Moulder
Yes, the great Gartley debate rages online as it has for many years, I suppose.
Everybody seems to make up their own rules in a discretionary/proprietary method.
That is why I asked about your "rules" in that I've never seen the use of the Gartley
with such a deep Pt D. (understanding the 1.272 and ab=cd validation)
To my research, which is by no means perfect or complete, but,
having sought out tons of information,
the highest probability Gartley's do not allow much more depth of Pt B than .618
by .05 or there about's to maintain the "harmonics/symmetry".
So I guess my question should really be: what has been your success rate with patterns
that have this type of depth with Pt D.
This particular pattern certainly has almost no risk - depending on where the stops
are placed, but, I'd be more inclined to play this as a double bottom as in my "rules"
this is not a valid Gartley. But, I'm always looking for other peoples successful rules
with the hope of increasing my success in the balance.
Thus I'm assuming you think that the 1.272 rule overrides all others ?
thanks for your thoughts and best wishes for your success!!!!!
+1 Reply
David.Moulder dojitrader
I agree, rules seem to differ - not only by peoples preferences, a certain degree of "ohh, its close enough" and by what and whom they are taught. In a perfect world a Gartley comprises of 2 61.8 retracements and a 1.272 extension of A-B, but - this is clearly not a perfect world and patterns hitting the 61.8 and turning on the spot at both retracements are extremely rare. my rules are simple, both retracements are better, and more probable the closer they are to the 61.8 - but the AB CAN go as deep as the 78.6 - if it touches the 78.6, the pattern is invalid. the BC retracement is valid as long as it reaches no shorter than 38.2 and no deeper than the 78.6, some might argue this is a wide range and it would impact on the probability, and they are probably right - but the Gartley by nature is only around 50/50 probable at the best of times.. and I don't often trade them, however if I spot one I share it for the people that do like to trade them. the only pattern I really trade is the cypher, as mentioned by isomorph on another one of my ideas, they are all derivatives of the Gartley (Bat, Butterfly, Shark etc.), all relying on 2 retracements of X-A, however I feel the cypher stands out as it doesn't fit that mould.. it relies on a retracement and an extension of A-B, making its qualifying factors completely different to that of the Gartley derivatives, while still adhering to a lot of the same probabilities - this has bade it, through extensive back testing - approx. 20-30% more probable and profitable than the Gartley derivatives.
I think, A to B retracement of XA is 61.8% in Gartley.
I'm just curious ~~~~
Is this pattern a proprietary use of the Gartley template ?
I've never seen a Gartley with a Pt D @ .957 and the A to B
leg is closer to calling this a Potential Butterfly, which of course,
would put Pt D out to the 1.27 fib ext.
Anyway, just curious and wishing you lots of pips in your pocket !!!!
+1 Reply
United States
United Kingdom
Home Stock Screener Forex Signal Finder Economic Calendar How It Works Chart Features House Rules Moderators For the WEB Widgets Stock Charting Library Priority Support Feature Request Blog & News FAQ Help & Wiki Twitter
Profile Profile Settings Account and Billing Priority Support Ideas Published Followers Following Private Messages Chat Sign Out