As the market has wiggled it's way down, we've set up a potential pattern that can be used to take advantage of a longer term buy or simply just trade as the pattern that it is.
Also yesterday, I released my usual Thursday night video. It has nothing to do with this particular trade but it should provide a better idea of what I look for when analyzing a price chart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TADjHIzk-_k&list=UUVveEks3MWZqOsvzTF_LGQg
FREE Training & Workshops - http://buff.ly/2udJgeT
My Latest Trading Video - http://buff.ly/2tJbZ8G
Educational Services - http://buff.ly/2h2c5qg
1. Precise 0.618 B point retracement of the XA leg.
2. Precise 0.786 D point retracement of the XA leg in the PRZ.
3. 1.27 or 1.618 BC projection.
4. Equivalent AB=CD.
5. C point retracement can vary between a 0.382 to a 0.886.
The retracement of this structure is way above the 0.618 retracement and I'm wondering how can this structure be valid.
I have drawn this chart to show you what I see, even though this is not a valid Gartley for me :
Can you explain your definition of a Gartley pattern because this one is way off of what I've learned.
Looking forward to see more content from you Akil, I really appreciate your stuff and I just want to improve my trading. Have a good day.
Also to Akil ( I see him as my mentor) I am also an advanced patern trader and I like you' re question, because even dough i have taken the advanced pattern course and I am looking for these patterns and combine these with the constallation software , frequently i find some litler paterns that are not shown by the software becaus to little , but correct me if i am wrong Akil, it is difficult to actualy decide witch patern to take or not to take, even find it difficult after having back-tested my portfoglio of 7/8 pairs and having a certain confidence that these paterns are 60% (approx) profitable , but like Akil says: some times when I select one or another to take or not take, you maight say that i am mostley wrong but yeah that is the way the markets goes , i suppose ;-)
One thing i did not back test , that is taking every patern , perhaps I chould …