Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Geppy's Geppy Thread (GBP/JPY)
- #13,021
- Apr 16, 2014 4:39am Apr 16, 2014 4:39am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
- #13,022
- Apr 16, 2014 4:39am Apr 16, 2014 4:39am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
- #13,023
- Apr 16, 2014 4:41am Apr 16, 2014 4:41am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
- #13,025
- Edited 7:32am Apr 16, 2014 7:14am | Edited 7:32am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
{quote} Still holding @ 171.80/60, waiting for it to break below.
Add: Maybe it gets tested but be careful when it gets taken out.
- #13,027
- Edited 7:46am Apr 16, 2014 7:43am | Edited 7:46am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
{quote} Cool, I am just watching atm, and watching carefully, T/B/T levels!
Add: I clearly recommend higher TF because of profit margin.
Example: http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...86#post7406986
{quote} You can find them in any market and any timeframe. Stocks, Futures, you name it. Add: I clearly recommend higher TF because of profit margin. Example: http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...86#post7406986
PS Add: What would it be in today's context! If I have say, I would look at test of 171.00 and break of 172.20,
- #13,029
- Apr 16, 2014 7:57am Apr 16, 2014 7:57am
- Joined Nov 2009 | Status: Trader | 2,582 Posts
The structure of a correction
Following downward trend, we entered what I still assume to be a corrective formation, containing three primary waves A B and C.
Wave A (three subwaves) to the upside was 161 pips in length.
Wave B traveled to the bottom at 169.5 and was slightly more complex.
Thereafter an even more complex Wave C to the upside.
Wave C length 261 pips.
Wave A and c usually maintain a fibonacci relationship with each other. In this case, Wave A (161) x 1.618 = 261.
A break much over 172.1 negates the argument.
Following downward trend, we entered what I still assume to be a corrective formation, containing three primary waves A B and C.
Wave A (three subwaves) to the upside was 161 pips in length.
Wave B traveled to the bottom at 169.5 and was slightly more complex.
Thereafter an even more complex Wave C to the upside.
Wave C length 261 pips.
Wave A and c usually maintain a fibonacci relationship with each other. In this case, Wave A (161) x 1.618 = 261.
A break much over 172.1 negates the argument.
- #13,030
- Apr 16, 2014 8:00am Apr 16, 2014 8:00am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
{quote} True, but looking at them and understanding are two different things, need more experience and precision for that! Long way to go, but am surely kicking.
If 171.80/60 support next 172.60/40
If 171.80/60 resistance next 171.00/00.80
then you can apply --> "I would look at test of 171.00 and break of 172.20"
{quote} Ok look, let me talk in parameters: If 171.80/60 support next 172.60/40 If 171.80/60 resistance next 171.00/00.80 then you can apply --> "I would look at test of 171.00 and break of 172.20"
Still only working with Fundamentals, should put my head around Technical a bit more. 
- #13,032
- Apr 16, 2014 8:19am Apr 16, 2014 8:19am
- Joined Sep 2009 | Status: From Timex to Rolex via Forex | 3,398 Posts
Twitter: MrC_Forex ; Facebook: /pages/MrC-Forex/197693770247397
- #13,033
- Apr 16, 2014 8:42am Apr 16, 2014 8:42am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
{quote} Close but still not close enough, need to start understanding charts better, think!
- #13,034
- Apr 16, 2014 8:50am Apr 16, 2014 8:50am
- Joined May 2011 | Status: [Forex]X-Ray | 4,835 Posts
