The cypher has it's BC leg extended too far down for it to be valid, although it may pass as a 5-0 or shark pattern. Put out the C point a bit further up on the same level as "A" and you might have valid scheme.
Always look at the bigger time-frames, since patterns there usually have the best odds of completing properly. Always check for bearish patterns in an uptrend for reversal entries, and vice versa.
I've taken your chart and did some modifications, I've drawn a much simpler way to approach ratio trading.
Hope this helps
First of all I actually did not ask for your "help" !
In fact I find your chart rather confusing.
Than the Cypher pattern is valid, because there was no candle close beyond 1.414 extension!
For the Gartley pattern your numbers only refer to Scott Carney s definition of the Gartley pattern . But Carney is not the inventor of the Gartley pattern ! But if you need to use Carney s Gartley definition to be happy, simply rename my target area as an AB=CD pattern completion.
A 5-0 or Shark pattern are not obvious to me on this chart at the moment.
So please feel free to post your own chart analysis on tradingview.com but do not use my posts to promote it !!
I was only trying to help, as I saw some mistakes on drawing out the patterns.
With regards to your cypher pattern, generally ratios are drawn back and forth from swing highs and lows. Candle closes depends entirely on time frames that you are viewing, and provide little value outside of price action and volatility.
If you were to draw the third leg extension to the bottom candle (as you already have) it would give a retracement of almost 250% which is not valid. If would however choose to draw the pattern on candle closes, it still leaves it just above 200% on the 30-Aug candle. An bullish AB-CD however is a bit more plausible in this case.
As for the "Gartley pattern", I fail to see how AC should be 0.781, it seems arbitrary in nature, unless used in conjunction with other tools to confirm this position. Also XB @ 56 and XD @ 68 have no solid validation, as far as I'm aware of harmonic trading.
I've already published the 'modified chart' that I made especially for my previous post, and then decided to post it anyway, with no prior planning to do so, simply out of preventing a waste of effort.
Feel free to discuss.
Therefore I already said that you should just replace the term "Gartley" with AB=CD in this case. I have no problem with that.
Also please have in mind, that this post was about the Cypher pattern. For the green (Gartley or AB=CD) pattern we still do not have point C !
As for candle closes etc. they depend on the timeframe, but for me they still have a value! I did not choose the 4 H timeframe over the daily randomly. There is always a degree of discretion in these things ! Trading is not an exact science !
This is why using more than one pattern pattern, in conjunction with several other technical over-bought/over-sold and fundamental drivers is the most effective way of getting the best odds of entries and exits.
Now going back to your chart, a symmetrical AB-CD pattern is always an option, but one of many, many more. If anything the CD extension could be a price extension of 1.27, 1.618, 1.5, 2.24 or 2.618. Not only that, but also a time extension of the same ratios.
So how do we know which pattern will unfold? Improve your odds with confluence.
I could draw at least 20 valid patterns on that chart alone, yet you chose only one, a time symmetrical AB-CD pattern with a 1.27 extension.
Your cypher pattern is arbitrary, the right leg is more than 200% below XA, and if it does reverse at the 78.6, that would be due to the BC retracement of the big AB-CD, not because of a bearish 'cypher'.
The gartley pattern is also invalid since 56.7 and 68..7 are also arbitrary numbers.
So far, the only pattern still on course in the chart as of this post is the bigger AB-CD, which you could have just drawn out without any of the four colored triangles. It just might be enough to signal a reversal, but on the basis of relying on only one possible pattern, unlikely.