Not Yet: Bearish Gartley at Reversal Zone, Triangle Trend

FX:USDJPY   U.S. Dollar / Japanese Yen
411 14 1
Line Resistance $FXY $NKY $NKD_F $NK_F
The Gartley is not a Gartley since it did not touch the .618 retracement. However, the trade might just work out considering the wedge. I disagreed because of the false Gartley.
An overly-onerous standard that negates many of the patterns you've drawn. Precise Fibonacci ratios are the stuff of textbooks and occasionally the real world. That's fine for conducting - hyper-precise and obnoxiously pedantic - analysis, but isn't an optimal pragmatic approach to assessing setups.
bertusch andrewunknown
Nice use of fancy words here. But still a Gartley is not yet a Gartley when the AB retracement has not hit 61.8. Otherwise it still could be a Bat or a Crab for all we know and putting in an aggressive trade has more risk.

You have, however, nice confluence with the wedge so good chance you will see a good trade from this. That being said does it not make it automatically a good Gartley trade, but more a structure trade.
bertusch bertusch
what does whether words are "fancy" or not have to do with anything? I appreciate your point: I'm very familiar with Carney's work (books, site, etc.) and understand his insistence that a valid Gartley exhibit a precise 61.8% retracement of line XA (not AB) at B. As he points out in the link below, confluence of the 78.6% retracement and a completed AB=CD at D are also defining criteria.

Some level of rigor in measurement has to be maintained or we could be talking about one of several patterns, featuring very different PRZs. But, as Carney concedes, the quality of a pattern isn't a "pass/fail" proposition - patterns exist on a spectrum. That this pattern's point B is 0.7% off of the archetypical Gartley is negligible: it isn't as if the chart assigns B a 0.50 or 0.786 retracement so this is hardly playing fast-and-loose with the measurement criteria.

Ultimately it's a debate on theory, and no where is it written that meeting 61.8% *to the letter* - except by fiat from Carney - is some objective, eternal truth necessary for an legitimate or an effective Gartley.
bertusch andrewunknown
If you work by these rules ok. But look at the ABCD in the last leg. It actually completes at the 88.6 making it, again a Bat pattern and NOT a Gartley. It is okay if you use a little bit of improvisation on those two since you will be placing your stops above the X point and the trade will work out. Only problem is that you are trading a Bat pattern and not a Gartley pattern. And starting at 886 or 786 can make some pips difference. Plus you are putting yourself in a lot of pain if you place your stops too close above your entry.
the ABCD from ABCD or the ABCD inside line CD?
andrewunknown andrewunknown
andrewunknown andrewunknown
There's cluster resistance ~99.50 and again at ~100, coincident with the 78.6% and 88.6% retracements of XA. A Bat construction is plausible; but the Gartley is as well. Whether having two potential patterns is an asset (to me, it is) or a liability is a matter of tactics: time frame, position sizing, scaling, etc.
bertusch andrewunknown

I think your trade will work out, but it will bring you in a lot of pain. My thoughts though, it's still trading.
EN English
EN English (UK)
EN English (IN)
DE Deutsch
FR Français
ES Español
IT Italiano
PL Polski
TR Türkçe
RU Русский
PT Português
ID Bahasa Indonesia
MS Bahasa Melayu
TH ภาษาไทย
VI Tiếng Việt
JA 日本語
KO 한국어
ZH 简体中文
ZH 繁體中文
AR العربية
Home Stock Screener Forex Signal Finder Cryptocurrency Signal Finder Economic Calendar How It Works Chart Features House Rules Moderators Website & Broker Solutions Widgets Stock Charting Library Feature Request Blog & News FAQ Help & Wiki Twitter
Profile Profile Settings Account and Billing My Support Tickets Contact Support Ideas Published Followers Following Private Messages Chat Sign Out