Following is the frame by frame development of a trade, defined by the Predictive/Forecasting Model - Last frames (H4 and ) will contain the most recent update in predictive/forecasting analysis - First, just a quick visual synopsis, looking back at this particular call:
... Cont'd in thread ...
Predictive Analysis & Forecasting
Denver, Colorado - USA
Alias: 4xForecaster (Twitter, LinkedIn, StockTwits)
Signal Service or Private Course - Contact: MarketPredictiveAnalysis@gmail.com
All updates on https://twitter.com/4xForecaster
$XAUUSD - WEEKLY Chart:
24 OCT 2014 - H4 - DAILY Chart:
30 OCT 2014 - DAILY Chart:
31 OCT 2014 - DAILY Chart:
31 OCT 2014 - H4 Chart:
31 OCT 2014 - H4 Char:
31 NOV 2014 - H4 Chart:
05 NOV 2014 - DAILY Chart:
05 NOV 2014 - H4 Chart:
07 NOV 2014 - DAILY Chart:
07 NOV 2014 - H4 Chart:
07 NOV 2014 - H4 Chart:
15 NOV 2014 - DAILY Chart:
15 NOV 2014 - H4 Chart:
Re-Posting of most recent analysis:
15 NOV 2014 - Update,
There is no directional change in the large timeframes (H4 and daily), of late.
In the following DAILY chart, price hit the target dead-on and has since reversed. The underlying geometry is very permissive, meaning that it would not always require that Point-5 be hit. although it was my expectation all along that it would hit it off of the 1-3-5 geometric side, and even strain the market a bit more towards a 5-prime level.
Instead, price reversed so far, in a way not so dissimilar from an Elliott Wave Flat (so far).
$XAUUSD - Daily Chart:
In the H4 chart below, price shows that it stalled at a corresponding structural level, within a range that defined a prior Elliott Wave lesser-degree Point-3. However, I expect that a higher level of attainment remain in the work, simply on the expectation that a dominant bearish trendline remains unanswered as of this market close interval. Such attainment would also allow price to test, but not surpass the upper range defining a slight territory above that descending trendline, an event which, if allowing price to reverse from there, would likely signal a resumption to lower lows.
If instead price were allowed to break across AND close across that bearish trendline, then it would require the trader to wait patiently for a higher high to develop, indicative of a persistent advance to higher highs. This is simple structural analysis without much bells and whistles, representing a set of observation that should help outline the shape of things to come in terms of directional intent:
$XAUUSD - H4 Chart:
Price hit the nominal "TG-Lo = 1134.65 - 24 OCT 2014" target, and rolled back up since then. On a daily chart, this price reaction is not substantive enough to call it a retracement, and much less a reversal. However, at the H4 level, price showed a significant reaction, in the order that should prompt the trader to consider both sides of directional options. Given the simple structural definitions, in terms of range/levels, this should provide a first-look potential into the underlying intention of the market.
The one thing to remember here is that the underlying geometry is that of a Wolfe Waves pattern. While we may want to focus on internal price action as it related to Elliott Waves approaches, the geometric pattern has its own set of demands, such as possibly requiring a true Point-5 completion (off of the 1-3 Line, which has remained unanswered still now), or a Point 5' ("five prime") validation of the 2-4 Line projected off of Point-3, or even a Point-5" ("five second") validation of the same 2-4 Line projected off of Point-1. Any of these events would occur if and once price returns from its current high. Therefore, all eyes should be on the chemistry that will occur between the friction of a reactive bullish ascent against a longer-term bearish trendline.
So far, the WEEKLY chart has been the most consistent, where the forecast held its ground. The DAILY and H4 charts have offered interim signals of support/resistance and reversal definitions as well, coming into conflict with the larger timeframe at times. This suggests that as long as a given timeframe remain true and consistent to the predictive analysis/forecast, then that timeframe remains the level of reference in control.
I personally do not trade metals, but I use them in charting to gauge what is the predominant tail and head winds. In this case, WEEKLY remain a reliable level of directional measure, although daily and H4 maintain their own merits. Looking at the weekly level, there is a target that has been set since last July 14th, which remains unanswered. I recommend that this target by kept in sight as the index target, i.e.: the probable level to which market might decline to. In the interim charts, (H4 and DAILY), any rallying or even suggested reversals to the upside should be measured against their larger timeframe merit.
The analyses/forecasting I offer assume that the audience is sophisticated and experienced, implying that the trader uses my charts/analyses/forecasts as a reference, and not as a signal. This is simply because, although I consider myself a veteran prop trader, I am not licensed to offer entry/exit recommendations on any financial vehicles.
Plus, I really seek to have the least deleterious influence on a trader's already developed risk management. If i recommended en entry with a stop loss that exceeded a tolerable risk of loss for a certain group of traders, then I would effectively jeopardize that groups' ability to remain in the trading world. If you consider that a 3% loss on a 10% position of an account (i.e.: say a $10,000 account would allow trading 10% or $1,000.00, but risking no more than 3% per trade, or $30.00, then recommending my own stop-loss at a value that would exceed a corresponding 3% risk tolerance would simply be unwise for me to recommend, and irresponsible for any well-planning trader to follow). I have seen traders risking as much as 20% in any given trade. This means that this trader was willing to be wrong just 5 times in order to turn his account to zero - insane.
So, best is that I offer a directional bias that is not even my own opinion, but that of an algorithm I came up with years ago. This way, i interfere the least against it, and the TradingView trader who "planned their trades, and trade their plans" can just for themselves whether this is worth following or not.
Still, at time, I itch to give a geometry-based opinion that may contradict with the predictive/forecasting model, simply because i have such a staunch belief in the occult geometries of the market, but most of the time, I will resist the urge, and let the model prove my urge wrong.
Again, I very much appreciate your following and reading the analyses. It's all free, and done with much pleasure.
TradingView will be posting foreign exchanges sometimes in 2014. According to @admin, this will come in 2015, but there is absolutely now knowledge right now as to whether this could arrive at the beginning, the middle or even the end of 2015.
This will be interesting to chart as well.
At the current level, I would expect that further upside would be much more limited based on the set of resistance/hurdles overhead than the void that has opened below. Both a rudimentary wave count, as well as the predictive model are favoring the further-down scenario - David
Where the target got hit, price could either be going lower, or simply roll back up. In the "lower" scenario, it would allow price to validate the 1-3 Line. However, it is not imperative that it did so. Which is why a "higher" scenario comes into consideration as a conflicting alternative.
At this point, I would wait and see.
In my experience with this pattern, Point-3 imparts a much-important visual signal. It is often the trigger level that commits price to reverse or cross-and-carry on. So, NEXT bar might give us an idea here - This is NOT an absolute rule, and not a principle that belongs to any trading methodology that I know. Instead, it represents a mere observation.
The current price level officially invites us to adopt a much dreaded wait-and-see stance.
In reference to degrees, I do not claim to follow EPW, therefore, you are not likely to see paretheses or circles around numbers or letters. Instead, and as indicated in prior analyses, I simply enlarge the font and alter the color of the number/letter. I am simply interested in two degrees, and this simple differentiation technique is what I have opted for - Again, this is a deliberate deviation from EWP, and one that is meant to simplify the view of the chart by using colors over symbols.
Regarding Point-3 (black), it defines a long-term termination level of a bearish swing, central to the entire impulse (IMP). As such, it is not meant to carry any significance onto the lesser degree pattern that is defined by the smaller-font numbers in pink, other than coinciding with that level.
Overall, I expect that the pattern might require some slight modifications, ones that may not alter the overall bias of the chart, but perhaps enhance the corroboration it may carry with the predictive.forecasting model, which remains bearish at this point and maintains the targets as defined.
The modification might occur at the start of a complex zig-zag formation which might initiate the 5th wave of this entire pattern - While in the chart Point-1 has been preemptively selected as defining the start of such possible pattern (be it an EW's ED or a Bill Wolfe's WW patterns), I will consider the current Point-3 (pink) as a possible refinement level, as it may be the actual starting point of these two patterns - This preemptive method is one that is habitually used in Elliott Waves Principles, and one that rarely impart much deviation once the final pattern is drawn.
Regarding the date: "December 13", I cannot find how this date would contribute to a ED - Here is the chart I am assuming is being considered here:
Your input is valuable and very much appreciated - Feel free to clarify.
With this assumption in mind (which is what Elliott Wave methodology does: Assuming, then adjusting retrospectively), then the current price action should be a bearish impulse with a forceful intent to carve out lower lows with shallow interim retracement (i.e.: not significant enough to alter the current bearish course of action). Also, based on EW's Rules Of Alternations, the simplicity of Wave-2 invites us to expect a more complex zig-zagging feature to define this same-degree wave-4.
As mentioned earlier, I often look at what price does in relation to the background pattern (pink)'s Point-3. If price commits to levels above it (i.e.: by opening and closing new bars at higher and higher levels), then the assumption of the bearish IMP would come into question.
Also, as mentioned earlier as well, EWP often preempts its patterns, by using Point-3 (here in black, defining its coincident Point-1 in pink) as a preliminary point of reference from which to project a line forward into the future via the next structure level (here: point-3 in pink), so as to define its Ending Diagonal. Hence, on this perspective, a slight modification might occur if/as price moves in the forecast (bearish) direction.
Regardless of the background geometries, wave count and technical commentaries, the predictive/forecasting model is what I rest my opinion upon. I offer a variety of background scenarios, be it geometric/patterns, but the model is designed to "search and hit" its target, regardless of the underlying technical, fundamental or personal belief development - I have lost more pips going against it, simply because its algorithm does not take into account all other features to which we are prone to fall victim by distraction.
So, the target stands. However, the manner in which price will ambulate towards it, in terms of technical or fundamental drivers, is simply an artistic exercise as far as it is considered.
$XAUUSD - H4 chart calls for retract. See #fibonacci levels. But WEEKLY chart aims lower
via @tradingview | $XAU
The expectation here is that price remains in a DOWNWARD course, considering the larger WEEKLY timeframe - See next chart:
However, as just discussed, if you considered the finer granular frames, say H4, we already witnessed a dead-on hit on a nominal target. As defined in prior analyses, nominal targets (TG-Hi, TG-Lo, TG-x) are different from numerical targets, in so far as they represent a level of deep RETRACEMENT (in the order that exceeds 0.618-Fibonacci contraction) at the very least, or that they represent a level of REVERSAL (i.e.: in the order greater than 1.00-Fibonacci extensions, such as 1.131, 1.414, 1.618) - See H4 chart below:
In this case, price rising to exceed a 61.8% contraction would answer to this TG-Lo consequential rule, and yet would let price reverse to answer the weekly forecast calling.
So, again, the current price level, which attained a significant "support-turned-resistance" level, as verified by "Point-3" recency, suggests that we might simply wait and see whether further contraction should occur, or whether further extensions might drive price to lower levels, as was originally defined in the July 14th 2014 forecast.
$XAUUSD reached 0.618-Fib retracement; Expecting significant resistance:
via @tradingview | $XAU $AUD $USD #forex
----------$XAUUSD still eyes 5-prime validation along dashed line; Would support #elliottwave 5th:
@tradingview $XAU $Gold
$XAUUSD 4-Hour chart highlights the overhead resistance levels; Favors Bears:
@tradingview $XAU $USD $XAG #forex
* * * Bearish for $XAU / $Gold and positively correlated Forex pairs: $AUD, $CAD * * *
77% Swiss rejected plan to force CB to buylarge $gold quants at 20% reserve.
Bearish pressure on commodity #forex pairs:
$AUD and $CAD vs. $USD