Using fibonacci extensions, between 127.2 and 161.8 of the previous impulse move, you can clearly see that these extensions are areas where buyers came into the market and reversed price giving a long entry opportunity. Not how my actual entry was higher because I was using typical "demand vs supply" zones...also known as support/resistance areas. Clearly the fibo gave a more accurate entry zone, and predicted a temporary break of support followed by a rush buying
Note again how in going the other way after the selling exhausted and buying pushed price to the top of a range, how price extended the range and once again gave a zone of exhaustion that proved reliable and allowed me to take partial profits on the position which was actually entered in the previous exhaustion zone predicted by the fibo extentions.
I continue to observe these moves and am starting to record when they are the most accurate at predicting not only areas of exhaustion but also possible reversals. I am finding anecdotal evidence that the second wave is usually the most accurate at predicting a final exhaustion phase. This may be the result of a 1-5 impulse wave, or perhaps even an ABC correction, but it appears to be consistent.
I have yet to put together a rule set for using this, but I am finding it repeats with some observational consistency.
Note again how in going the other way after the selling exhausted and buying pushed price to the top of a range, how price extended the range and once again gave a zone of exhaustion that proved reliable and allowed me to take partial profits on the position which was actually entered in the previous exhaustion zone predicted by the fibo extentions.
I continue to observe these moves and am starting to record when they are the most accurate at predicting not only areas of exhaustion but also possible reversals. I am finding anecdotal evidence that the second wave is usually the most accurate at predicting a final exhaustion phase. This may be the result of a 1-5 impulse wave, or perhaps even an ABC correction, but it appears to be consistent.
I have yet to put together a rule set for using this, but I am finding it repeats with some observational consistency.
@xxxx§|[::::::::::::::::>