Andrews Pitchfork (Median Line)

tradingview.com

I don't know Janeisch, and I'm not saying this does or doesn't apply to him...

Tim is protective of, I think, traders who might get taken in by anyone who is claiming this-and-that about the use of pitchforks, and charging a ton of money for ... (whatever)... when Tim knows he has posted a lot of Andrew's course material online for free. It wouldn't be fair to falsely claim Andrew's work as their own, etc. etc. or charge a bunch for stuff which is already out there and, for the most part, free.

But Tim does himself offer a paid service to train people. (I took a class from Tim and it was worth it; I'm not a subscriber to his service but if I wanted to learn about Andrews it's a good value, IMO). I'm sure other pitchfork traders offer services to train people too. Are they good value, and worth it? I have zero comment about any of them. I have zero direct experience with the others. I just think it harsh to use hear-say of what Tim might or might not have said about Janeisch.

I watched the video. One chart shows A/R lines (3 on the chart), and while it may be a valid set, there is zero explanation as to how they got drawn. Unless I heard it wrong, he seems to imply all 3 of the lines are "Reaction" lines, and if so, where is the main centerline in the past, and the 3 corresponding Action lines in the past?? Not shown. More likely, the 3 lines shown are just a simple set of - left to right - action, center, and reaction lines. The user draws the 1st two according to past PA, and observes real-time PA when it touches the 3rd line. He didn't explain this, but it wasn't the main purpose of the video to do so.

My impression/guess with him showing the old typewritten material is that it's an authentic Andrews newsletter with reference to something called the "ORE method". It would be a huge undertaking to fake that document, so I don't question it.

Janeisch's video makes no explanation, afaik, of how these ORE lines were drawn. I'd be very skeptical myself unless I could prove someone had made a real-time post showing an ORE line noted, and then see later on how it played out. I'm not saying this evidence does or doesn't exist, but I'm not motivated to go looking for it anyway just to see if Janeisch was on target with live trading ideas using ORE lines, or not.

It seems to me it would be better to find that newsletter (or others mentioning ORE) and see for oneself how Andrews drew them. I'm sure you'd agree, and perhaps someone (Tim or ??) knows about the specific newsletter(s) and either already has them online somewhere, or can comment, or best of all, share it online.

After sideway consolidation ,Gold start its bear Run.AS Predicted by Alan Anrews outcome of sideways counts(Tim Morge described This as "Energy Coil").another interesting thing, Neowave Glenn Neely Predicting Bear Market with weekly data,You can see from Andrews analysis point of view a clear "EP Formation".

ORE method---- Long back I took a course From Gordon De Ross OF pitchforkprimer is also one of Andrews student,he never mention anything about "ORE" in his course.HE told about "FL technique" in his course,I think Ron jaenisch "ORE" is some alteration or modification of that.Bytheway I watch Ron inotv presentation it is quite interesting.

Well, it wasn't hearsay pips. I heard Tim on more than one occasion during his webinars say how he had never heard of the method while at the same time was dismissive of it as though it was fraudulent. Trust me when I say he doesn't hold Janesich in high-esteem (lol).

As far as revealing the ORE Method, he isn't doing it because he wants you to pay to find out how it works....simple and plain. As long as he isn't breaking any laws and people are willing to pay for the information, you can't knock his hustle. Hell, it's not like Tim's services and products are cheap (lol).

However, you can pull his coat-tail if he is trying to pass off something as being a method of Dr. Andrews when it is not. That's why I posted to video. If he's a fraud, here's the chance to expose him. If he is not, then I think Tim himself should acknowledge that the man was telling the truth.

At the end of the day, I appreciate both men for they have helped me in my understanding of median lines.

Regarding the video posted by auxesis (What's up dude!) , I recall Tim being VERY displeased that Janeisch posted it. He didn't like the fact that it showed Dr. Andrews not being on his "A-game" due to his advanced age.

Kap!

We are all going to face that (advanced age) someday, hopefully - however in advanced years unlike us, Dr. Andrews could still out trade everyone in the room.

Hope everything is going well, been busy on this end, barely time to check in. Going back a few days, expanding thoughts..... imho, using A/R, Forks to find vibrations/market rhythms has it's place as long as it all doesn't become retrospect, to really make the forks talk you have to get ahead of a leading indicator.

To me, everything hinges on the (p2) either you're picking the turn and using the fork for target, or you're looking at the following retest of (p2)..... if the initial move away from (p2) didn't hit any natural target, then the following retest is a valid entry attempt.......... in any given timeframe you have two pertinent forks, the current and the one preceding it, only Their intersections should be noted for level and time.

The next higher time frame/degree's fork's should be outlined in the background.

Past the last 4 major swing points in any given time frame becomes muted in my book...... I know there's lots of running price action charts with repeated touches, to me that better describes channeling of EW structure.... which is a whole different chapter in Fork studies.

Use the preceding 2 forks structures to help you find the new (p2), when the new turn makes sense, either hit it or wait for the next retest as long as the initial doesn't just take off to it's destination leaving you behind. You're trading "C's and "3's"..... all Elliot waves have a Third or C wave, you're never promised a 5th so stick to those and you're odds will improve.

gotta go.

a

Good food for thought auxesis!

By extending the lines of a pitchfork backwards, do you think the behaviour of price within the upper and lower regions provide some kind of indication of how price will react within those same regions on the other side of the baseline?

Hmmmmm....

This is a chart of the hourly GBP/USD by the way.

Hi StilLearning,

Although you posted your detailed post 11 days ago, no one has commented, AFAIK. I have some comments for you and anyone interested:

* First off, I'd like to say: nice job to think outside of the box. I understood what you described and I have played around with it just a little bit.

* Thanks for taking the time to write up such a detailed explanation. That took some effort on your part. It's appreciated.

* People should not conclude that your method *requires* the use of Range Bars. I have yet to really try them myself. If they were built into MT4 it would be a no-brainer. Since they are not, it requires a Range bar indicator. I wouldn't object to investing $50 in the one you mentioned, but it's not my priority right now, and neither am I motivated to find any free ones right now.

That said... it I were to see more examples of how well Range Bar charts work with pitchforks, I might get a whole lot more motivated/interested. So I encourage you or others to post charts showing the advantages, or at least the resonance of the lines when using Range Bar charts (and maybe even show the differences compared to time-charts )

* Your scripts to draw the lines are helpful enough, and they do get the initial point across for how to draw the lines. But once understood, I myself prefer to just draw a Fibo retracement from two potential pivots that will become the B and C pivots of a pitchfork. I then draw a pitchfork with A anywhere in space, then B and C on those same pivots as the Fibo. I then adjust A until the medianline intercepts (at the TIME of B!) the desired fibo retracement value. You suggested 24% and 38% which are fine, but by drawing my own Fibo, I can have more values and see if some others jump out at me.

* Regarding your scripts... I observe that you are not requiring great accuracy from this method. The lines are apparently guidelines that you have found useful. However, I have something of a bias towards extreme accuracy, just in case it turns out that any such method is capable of demonstrating that it's important.

Since your script is a bit loose, you won't ever really know if there is the potential for great accuracy with this method or not. So... I would invite you to consider using the more precise 23.6068% (=phi**-3), and 38.1966% (phi**-2). (lol, or at least 23.6% and 38.2% instead of 24% and 38%; just 1 extra digit affects the slope quite a bit).

Another slight (inaccurate) difference in slope is caused by you anchoring some of your derived trendlines at the midpoint in bars between B and C. There are no half-bars to anchor to, so when you have an odd number of bars from B-C, your script shifts the 2nd trendline points by 1/2 a bar. That slightly changes the slope. It would be better to anchor those lines at the same times of B and C. The two prices of each line would be calculated, according to the slope, for what the values would be at the times of B and C. (Difficult to write and explain, but it's actually just basic algebra).

Described another way, for each of your derived trendlines... you know the exact left-most trendline point. The time is at the pitchfork B, and the price, for example, is = prC + fib_value*(prB-prC). You know the midpoint between B-C in price and time. From that, you can calculate the slope of the line. The price at the time-of-C (rather than the halfway time between B-and-C) is simply your TL-Price1 + slope*(barB - barC)

I notice some of your trendlines anchor the 1st point elsewhere (such as on B or C), and then you used the slope to find the 2nd TL point a few bars away. While that may work, MT4 is really stupid and inaccurately shows where sloped object-lines appear in the future. Sometimes merely changing the size of the chart radically shifts lines up-and-down. That sucks. I find that spreading apart the object points tends to minimize the ridiculous shifting. So... my preference would be to use the time of B and C for *every* trendline you calculate. (Or at least, spread the times apart a few more bars). It may help reduce the lousy MT4 shifting that can occur.

Still complicated to read, but if you don't care about extreme accuracy, feel free to ignore it.

* I recognize my own apparent contradiction to, on the one hand, say I prefer to draw my own Fibo and manually shift Pitchfork objects to the desired Fib value; on the other hand, I have suggested improvements to your script which might barely affect the line slope. I guess I like both, but I also like my own (private) pitchfork tools. I may get around to adding your ideas into my tools with the extreme accuracy I'm looking for, just in case it matters.

Fyi, I filled in my Fibo tool with extremely accurate values, and on each fibo line, I include "%$" in the description. THAT will tell me the calculated price at each fibo level, which I can then manually transfer into the price-of-pitchfork-point-A. That gets me virtually all of the accuracy I'm suggesting, because the regular pitchfork object does not suffer from the 1/2 bar midpoint problem.

* Your charts show rectangles of differing sizes around your range bars. Are those rectangles surrounding the bars to group them into "time" bars? (Like surrounding a hours worth of range bars, where some will be narrow, others wide, depending on how volatile the market is.

Is this what those rectangles are? Is that built into the commercial Range Bar tool you mentioned, or is that another indicator (sessions?), or ??

* For my chart below, I took a little time to manually calculate the exact price for point A, for each of the 3 pitchforks. I know the distance from B-to-C. I calculated the prices at 23.6068% and 38.1966%. This chart is an example of one with an odd-number bars from B to C.

Notice your 23.6% lines are the most different from mine (green) (which I think are more accurately drawn). Your 0% lines differ a little also (gray). Your 38% lines hardly differ at all (blue), which I think is because "38%" is less sloped than "38.1966%", but the half-bar error I mentioned also tends to lesson the slope. The result is your lines end up being close to the true accurate slope. For THIS example where the 1/2 bar error is a factor, your "38%" lines are exactly as they should be; they would be slightly off if B-to-C were not an odd# of bars between).

I am intrigued by the result. The quartile lines I added also appear to resonate well. I have to say also, that I think my accurate lines are slightly more resonant than yours, but with just this one data point, no one should draw any conclusions. I think it merits further study. It's totally up to you if you'd like to add more accuracy to your scripts or not.


Maybe I'll have more comments and observations to share later, but I've said enough for now.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your ideas. Feel free to post more examples to further explain and demonstrate the trade setups you find.

I would say "yes". Your example doesn't show any of the "pre-fork" resonance (that which occurs prior to pt A), but I sometimes see examples where there is such resonance. More likely to see, however, would be pre-fork resonance to warning lines, rather than the main PF lines.

Here's what my GU, H1 chart looks like using your pivots, but with lines extended backwards (and quartiles added). It's not a very good example for pre-fork resonance, IMO.

Your data feed seems to have enough differences that even your regular fork resonance (after point C) is much better than mine. Not sure why, other than data/broker differences do affect the slope and lines on the charts. Alas.

Kapital,

This EU,H1 chart has the Andrews (Black) drawn with the lower pivot. Being the more extreme price, this would always be my more preferred pivot to use compared to your earlier chart using a previous pivot. But sometimes the other works.

The Blue fork is the Andrews, but flipped, AND, the LML passes through the Andrews pt B (or pt2 pivot). (I call this fork FL2).

The Red fork is also a flipped Andrews, but it's ML passes through the midpoint between the Andrews pt B and C (or pt2 and pt3 pivots). (I call this FLX).

Quartiles were added.

The chart is fairly busy, but one can see decent resonance to both the Blue and Red forks (and of course, the original Andrews).

That said, I'm never sure when to bother to take a look at these derived forks for such resonance. Sometimes those extra forks work very well (as they do here), and other times apparently not at all.

Obviously I have nothing better to do this Friday night (after market close) than to make posts to this Andrews thread. (But >10 of you apparently have nothing better to do than to read my posts! Shouldn't we "get a life" ?? )

Previously I have commented on using "intra-fork" resonance: that which occurs to the pitchfork lines between pt1 and pt3 (A and C if you prefer).

I trade Fx live, but here's a demo S&P trade I took because of such resonance.


Several examples of intra-fork resonance are circled in green. Ideally, the S&P would have peaked at the best resonance (with this data feed) at about 1587.75. However, it did exceed that by a mere 0.75, so not bad at all.

I got in at 1587.75 as price rose into the area.

After the peak, you can see the S&P came down nicely. About ~15 handles or so on an updated chart.

Price hit a low on a ModSchiff quartile (not shown) and bounced up. I added to my short 1 tick below the previous swing high.

It never went against my 2nd trade even a tick.

Both trades are in profit as they sit over the weekend -- something I would never do with a live account this close to the entry price.


With any luck, this S&P WEEKLY chart with decent intra-fork resonance will hold the peak as well.

Keep 'em coming....I love this stuff!!!

However, a chat room with the ability to post images (or just providing a link) would be waaaay better for real-time interaction.

Suggestions?

I don't see how yours differs from mine at all.

I wasn't really leaning towards finding pre-resonance, but rather to show the willingness of price to stay within the regions of the fork as well as the duration of the stay.

The addition of the sliding parallels was to find resonance on the right side of the baseline. However, I'm sure there are instances where it picks it up on the left as well.

I'm having a hard time seeing how you "flipped" your forks. Could you post the same chart minus the backward lines and quartiles? I need to see where all the anchors are on your flipped forks.

You're right, I use skype for some of it. Actually I *do* have something better to do right now and am out for the eve.

They don't differ at all, I agree. Mine was more of an update since your post, plus to make note of the two different places to anchor the flipped Andrews forks. (pt2 was one; the mid-point between pt2-pt3 was the other I showed; I checked also pt3 and pt1 but they didn't resonate as well);

I guess I'm unsure of what point you were making.


Anyway, gotta go. G'nite.