your reference to the commander of the battle. As such it failed miserably !!!!
Which is why I tried to apologize at the beginning. A sort of warning, if you will.
As to Scott Carney, my reading of his work is that he is more of a strict constructionist
than a "curve fitting" pattern trader. He has very strict requirements for his interpretation
of the patterns to be valid, yes ? I may have to go back and re read but,
I do not remember his using the price close as more important than price action.
I do not think I've ever seen an example of closing price in his drawings / examples
to the exclusion of actual lows and highs. I thought the whole point of using a pattern
was including the entire swings high to low/ low to high. My experience/testing has
always shown an increased probability with the precise rules. It seems to me that
every time the rules are bent, in other words "curve fitting" as I call it leads to reduced
success. Hence I do not trade a pattern that does not meet such strict construction.
HOWEVER - if you're making lots of pips and happy with your methodology.
Then keep on keeping on !!!(uh oh! that just dated me)
Wishing you great success in 2014 and I'll think again before I attempt
another use of humor to debate a chart pattern. ~~~~~~~~
Your "smart aleckiness" demonstrates a manner of slight that is unfavorable in the profession of trading. By your tone I can assess that you are unbecomingly cocky and overconfident. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your brass insolence does not hinder your ability to learn, I give you insight into my analysis.
The gartley pattern completion point ratio (78.6) is used under the presumption that each main and dominant swing have made exact retracements to and closes in specific ranges mentioned in Scott Carney's book (The Harmonic Trader.) As you may, VERY WELL, know we look at ranges because the market does not always give us precise (to the pip) market movement.
The time I have studied the harmonic patterns, I have observed that an exact 78.6 percent completion of a Gartley pattern occurs when B closes in the 61.8-78.6% retracement range of XA and C closes inside of the 50-61.8% retracement range of AB.
The rest is detailed in the link below.
I do not negate your very own analysis, I just disagree when you say that this trade does not have an edge of profitability. Considering, two pattern completions, two confluent PRZs, trendline support, and three breaks of structure from XA as opposed to the single break of structure from AD (assuming D closes below B), and most importantly generous Risk:Reward.
I wish you prosperous and, to you specially, fortuitous trading.
The big question I have is why you place the b point at such an arbitrary place
when the end of a to b is clearly lower by about 30 pips or so ? (b to c also comes up short)
Which means this is no longer a Gartley . . .
I do not recognize any pattern that produces an edge of profitability at this point.
So, if you will allow me some smart-alecky impertinence:
As the commanding officer in this battle I think I'll retreat and regroup until the enemy's
tactics and the weapons I have to fight the battle are better identified to live for
another day and a greater probability of a winning victory.
I see a change in the enemies movements: The breakout to the upside failed.
The trend has clearly changed to the downside with the series of lower lows
and lower highs. The enemy's candlesticks shows it's intent to head for an
A = C, assuming this is an A-B-C corrective swing, to around .8100.
For me to attack at this point the enemy would have to show a major
retreat/reversal, other wise, I'm going to let his actions dictate my response
before I risk my men on a low probability outcome.
Well, I tried: Thanks for your indulgence !!!!!
Best of luck ~~~~~~~