Oktoberfest Nightclub | Page 369 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread
Attachments: Oktoberfest Nightclub
Exit Attachments

Oktoberfest Nightclub

  • #7,361
  • Oct 5, 2014 3:00am Oct 5, 2014 3:00am
Quoting Forexcube
Hallo Schiclkeria & hallo Infinitus! Was mich mal so am Rande interessiert ist, wieviel %-Profitpoints macht ihr denn so mit den Elliot Waves per anno, sagen wir mal auf EURUSD, wenn jeder von euch aus den individuellen Interpretationswerten die waves tradet? Herbstliche Grüsse aus der friedlichen Schweiz. FXcube
Trading Elliott Wave strategy is very profitable on my view. if you trade elliott waves your should search "valid EW-Pattern formations" which work with fibonacci targets on the PIP long term daily weekly +/- 10 Pips.

but some people don't understand fibonacci and how to use it.

THE WAY is always 1+1 = is always 2

78.6% + 78.6% = 2x http://www.forexfactory.com/attachme...2&d=1412263224

or 1 +1 = 2

here a example: last week drop to 1.2570 and the way to 1.2634 was a WXY correction we retraced to 78.6% 1.2583 and on the top was a retracement again with 78.6% = 1.26692

1 +1 = 2

if you can identify a clear pattern formation - and i mean with clear fibonacci targets you can say this is wave = maybe ABC Flat and you can says after ABC we will see a impulse move.

I trade my own system and i get my target levels - only what i have to do to connect my target points with may be elliott wave and watch which way is the right, to reach my targets.

Reading charts with elliott wave is on my view very important to identify the next moves.
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: pic 1.PNG Size: 39 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: tt.PNG Size: 17 KB
  • #7,362
  • Oct 5, 2014 3:47am Oct 5, 2014 3:47am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} Targets develop as waves/momentum develops. As long as there is no wave 4, the estimates for a wave 5 are all but a wild guess. You can not estimate with high probability the target of a wave 5, when you only have 1, 2 and developing 3 Question is and will ever be: where is your evidence, that waves develop in "fixed" fib-ratios? For me it is: there are many many fib levels, and surly enough one of them will get hit. Last days you showed a count with impulsive structure up - maybe leading or ending diagonal. You showed the wave 2 (down)...
Answering your questions:

Point 1: I have never said the drop from 1.3992 is a impulsive wave down! I i dont count this like this chart http://www.forexfactory.com/attachme...5&d=1412069812 with target of wave 3 = 1.24157 (261.8%). And your question/answer is right = we can not estimate wave 5 without wave 4!!!! but we can estimate the target of wave 3 with sub-waves from 1.3700 (on my view this is not a wave 3 and i don't count it with 1-2-3-4-5 - i'm counting with W-X-Y-X2-Z) the difference between counting 1-2-3-4-5 is here

http://www.forexfactory.com/attachme...8&d=1412493662 subwave 5 target is 1.2562 and i said it before this count is wrong - if anyone believe this he/she should go long here @ 1.2562

my count is W-X-Y-X2-Z and the Z target was @ 1.2504 http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...04#post7780204

Point 2: Where is my evidence, that waves devolp in "fixed-fib-ratios"??
The answer is 1+1 = is always 2 and the retracement is always 61.8%. As i have said = Das ist für jeden einen DENKSPORTAUFGABE und mehr will ich auch nicht verraten!!!!!!Ich habe dafür Jahre gebraucht, bis ich das verstanden habe! Read the Fibonacci basics. May be you will show me a statistic - aber ich scheiße drauf! Schau dir die Fibonacci Spirale an wie sie aussieht und Deine Frage kannst Dir automatisch beantworten: Your question was (For me it is: there are many many fib levels, and surly enough one of them will get hit.)

Point 3: My bull setups don't worked out since 1.3992 and i always said if anyony bull setup will work!

Point 4: there are right and wrong counts: until now the right count with target 1.2507 as a wxyxz was the right one and not the 1.2562 with labeling 1-2-3-4-5.

Point 5: see picture from Elliott Wave Principe wave targets @ 100%, 38,2%, 161.8%, 78.6%,
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Unbenannt.PNG Size: 50 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Unbenannt2.PNG Size: 82 KB
  • #7,363
  • Oct 5, 2014 5:04am Oct 5, 2014 5:04am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} Das ist immer so, daß die Wellen bei 61.8% retracen!!!!! Die sind immer vordefiniert!!! Aber ich habe dazu hier eine Frage gestellt. NO ANSWER no POST from my side! Das hat ein bißchen mit DENKSPORT zu tun, und da geht es los: Der Fisch beginnt am Kopf zu stinken! Das ist der FALL since 1.3992 und ich sehe immer noch nicht die Wave 2 oben! http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...03#post7776603 Ganz ehrlich ich scheiße auf jede Statistik die von irgend welchen Menschen gemacht wird und die es...
Jetzt wird es aber abenteuerlich, oder nicht?
  • #7,364
  • Oct 5, 2014 5:05am Oct 5, 2014 5:05am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} Das ist immer so, daß die Wellen bei 61.8% retracen!!!!! Die sind immer vordefiniert!!! Aber ich habe dazu hier eine Frage gestellt. NO ANSWER no POST from my side! Das hat ein bißchen mit DENKSPORT zu tun, und da geht es los: Der Fisch beginnt am Kopf zu stinken! Das ist der FALL since 1.3992 und ich sehe immer noch nicht die Wave 2 oben! http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...03#post7776603 Ganz ehrlich ich scheiße auf jede Statistik die von irgend welchen Menschen gemacht wird und die es NICHT VERSTEHEN!

Tja, dann mußt Du Dich aber auch nicht wundern, wenn die Menschen auf Deine Meinung "scheißen". Wenn Du etwas als Fakt postulierst, wie die festen Fib-retracements, dann solltest Du Beweise dafür liefern. Und ich meine nicht nur die Stichproben die passen, sondern eben eine Statistik oder ähnliches dazu.

Wie ich schon sagte: in den letzten Tagen sind einige Deiner "near-term" counts in die Hose gegangen (scheiß auf die festen Fibs), und dennoch bezeichnet Dich hier niemand als Schöncounter.

Wir können das so weitermachen oder auch eben nicht. Mir macht eine Diskussion keinen Spaß, wenn die Leute nicht richtig argumentieren (können oder wollen).

Vor kurzem hast Du Dich beschwert, dass in FF EW-Threads sinnlos geworden sind, weil jeder seine eigenen Regeln aufstellt. Gilt das Gleiche dann nicht auch für Dich?
  • #7,365
  • Oct 5, 2014 6:22am Oct 5, 2014 6:22am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} Jetzt wird es aber abenteuerlich, oder nicht?
Dieses Abenteuer ist genau der Clue ich könnte es mit einem Rechenbeispiel erläutern, aber das soll jeder für sich machen.

Der Eine oder der Andere wird vielleicht draufkommen - andere werden es belächeln.

Trading wäre zu einfach wenn man nur den Fibo von A=0% zu B=100% zieht und auf 61.8% retrace wartet.

Es kommt immer drauf an von WAS ?

Wie ich schon sagte = das ist Denksport!
  • #7,366
  • Oct 5, 2014 6:37am Oct 5, 2014 6:37am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} Tja, dann mußt Du Dich aber auch nicht wundern, wenn die Menschen auf Deine Meinung "scheißen". Wenn Du etwas als Fakt postulierst, wie die festen Fib-retracements, dann solltest Du Beweise dafür liefern. Und ich meine nicht nur die Stichproben die passen, sondern eben eine Statistik oder ähnliches dazu. Wie ich schon sagte: in den letzten Tagen sind einige Deiner "near-term" counts in die Hose gegangen (scheiß auf die festen Fibs), und dennoch bezeichnet Dich hier niemand als Schöncounter. Wir können das so weitermachen oder auch eben nicht....
Ich habe absolut kein Problem wenn leute auf mich scheißen - da bin ich schmerzfrei. Mich kann man ebenfalls als Schöncounter bezeichnen, jedenfalls schaue ich immer das die Fibtargets passen und mein count bis jetzt stimmte (long term) mit 1.2504. Dazu habe ich Fakten gepostet. Wenn die 1.2504 +/- 10 Pips auf Daily passen, da bin ich mehr wie zufrieden im Gegensatz zu 1-2-3-4-5 und Wave 5 target war bei 1.2562.

Ich weiß nicht mit welchen Regeln ich NEU komme. Ich trade EW-Rules wie sie im Buch stehen und komme nicht mir irgend einen Schmarn wie Nelly, HEW oder wie sie alle hier heißen.

Es bringt mir persönlich nichts, wenn mein Count wie ein Christbaum aussieht behängt mit irgend welchen Counts oder der Christbaum mit Kugeln und unten schaue ich nach 25 Fibo leveln mit der Hoffnung das einer hält.
  • #7,367
  • Oct 5, 2014 6:46am Oct 5, 2014 6:46am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} Answering your questions: Point 1: I have never said the drop from 1.3992 is a impulsive wave down! I i dont count this like this chart http://www.forexfactory.com/attachme...5&d=1412069812 with target of wave 3 = 1.24157 (261.8%). And your question/answer is right = we can not estimate wave 5 without wave 4!!!! but we can estimate the target of wave 3 with sub-waves from 1.3700 (on my view this is not a wave 3 and i don't count it with 1-2-3-4-5 - i'm counting with W-X-Y-X2-Z) the difference...

Look again at the pictures you posted regarding the rules and guidelines:

most are guidelines, only little are rules. And even the rules, when related to fib-retracements etc. are a bit opaque.A Guideline means in your words: 1+1 may be 2, but not necessarily

The rule, that the B-wave of an ABC-flat retraces at least 90% of wave A is plainly wrong. At least in currencies-trading and commodities we can see very often a B wave which retraces something between around 60% to 100%, and when I remember correctly, even Swannel found out the same (even for stocks).

Neely described this pattern, when the B-wave is weak and only retraces between 60-80% as B-wave failure.


You said:

My bull setups don't worked out since 1.3992

Does that mean that 1+1=2 has failed many times? Does that mean, that you say, that 1+1=2 works sometimes in one direction pretty well, but then not in the other direction? Inquiring minds want to know..... Or do the setups only work in hindsight?


Regarding WXYXZ or 1-2-3-4-5:

right, when waves develop, we can not say in ongoing process, which labelling will be right in the end. When we think "new impulse" down, we start counting 1-2-3-

but when the supposed to be wave 4 runs out of territory of wave 2 we know that something is wrong and we have to count ABC. Simply as that.

And yes, we can look for confirmation or ideas at the fib-expansions and retracements.But nearly nothing is set into stone.


Look on page 86 of EWP for the rules and guidelines of Motive waves. Can you spot any hard fib-ratios?


Regarding a wave 2 retracement:

EWP gives not much help here.

Neely said, that if wave 1 is extended (which you can only say after the fact, when 3 and 5 have developed) than wave 2 will retrace at least the 61,8%.

For a non-extended wave 1 he claims, that the wave 2 simply can retrace all of wave 2



Regarding the last wxy correction between 2571 and 2699:

you clearly thought about higher targets as I have shown in links. OK, afterwards they retrace and expand nice fib-wise. But when 1+1=2, why did you postulate higher targets and another structure at the time given?

Most likely the whole structure of this correction was ABC-flat, where the C-wave developed as ending diagonal.


Regarding statistics:

I use the work of Swannell, Neely and R.N. Elliott, Bolton and Hamilton.


It is strange that you answer opaque, advise me to read about basic fibonacci, advise me to look at the fib-spirale because that would answer my own question, when it would be up to you to deliver........

Oddly enough, we often have to look at some charts with claims like "hit to the pip" and some fib-levels, where we can not even see or back-calculate where the 0% and 100% of the levels would be.


Your complain about no-one answering your questions:

Do you even wonder?

I have answered your question. I have also permanently charted/counted the whole wave down and also gave targets. I repeatedly told, that the retracements to the upside were very short (indication for extreme bearishness).

For the retracement of the last consolidation between 2571 and 2699 I gave a chart which had this as a wave 4 of some degree. I even showed where I thought the targets of this wave 4. The lower target I gave was around 2720 because of channel line hit and trendline hit. Also it was in the area of the preceding wave 4.

When I charted the consolidation between 2859 and 2995, which also was a wave 4, I gave targets for the wave 5 of that wave at 2808, 2724 and 2588.

All three developed as consolidation zones. The 2588 is the basis (so to say) for the next wave 4 which developed than between 2571 and 2699 (look at chart)


For the ongoing wave 5 I have targets @ 2522 (think we may go deeper), 2443 and 2316. This are based on the height of the wave 4 retracement.
Another good target is the 2471.

On one of the charts I have shown past days I have marked the whole area between 2491 to 2316 as target area for this wave 5

As I ever said: I rather think in terms of probability areas /fib-areas than in terms of hard levels.
  • #7,368
  • Oct 5, 2014 6:55am Oct 5, 2014 6:55am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} Ich habe absolut kein Problem wenn leute auf mich scheißen - da bin ich schmerzfrei. Mich kann man ebenfalls als Schöncounter bezeichnen, jedenfalls schaue ich immer das die Fibtargets passen und mein count bis jetzt stimmte (long term) mit 1.2504. Dazu habe ich Fakten gepostet. Wenn die 1.2504 +/- 10 Pips auf Daily passen, da bin ich mehr wie zufrieden im Gegensatz zu 1-2-3-4-5 und Wave 5 target war bei 1.2562. Ich weiß nicht mit welchen Regeln ich NEU komme. Ich trade EW-Rules wie sie im Buch stehen und komme nicht mir irgend einen...


Which facts?

Like I said already: you are making rules out of guidelines, and you also make rules, I can not find anywhere. That is the core of our discussion. You are "shitting" on Elliott, but claim to trade the EW-rules. The statement is curious.


You are claiming that your bull-setups did not work since 399x, but at the same time complaining, that the people, who chart EW have many fib-levels as targets, in the hope that one will get hit.

In original that was my complain about the fibs, that there are many and sure enough one will get hit.

Bullshit discussion?
  • #7,369
  • Oct 5, 2014 7:16am Oct 5, 2014 7:16am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} Look again at the pictures you posted regarding the rules and guidelines: most are guidelines, only little are rules. And even the rules, when related to fib-retracements etc. are a bit opaque.A Guideline means in your words: 1+1 may be 2, but not necessarily The rule, that the B-wave of an ABC-flat retraces at least 90% of wave A is plainly wrong. At least in currencies-trading and commodities we can see very often a B wave which retraces something between around 60% to 100%, and when I remember correctly, even Swannel found out...
1 + 1 = 2
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: go.PNG Size: 15 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: 1und1.PNG Size: 25 KB
  • #7,370
  • Oct 5, 2014 7:28am Oct 5, 2014 7:28am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} 1 + 1 = 2 {image} {image}
i think my bull setup has don't worked out and my entry @ 1.2695 area was very bad and my draw down to my account was also so bad

and the drop from 1.2695 to forecasted 1.2507 was also a bad trade

and 1+1 = 2 was also a failure
  • #7,371
  • Oct 5, 2014 7:36am Oct 5, 2014 7:36am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} 1 + 1 = 2 {image} {image}

yes, thanks for showing this example. I know this setups, but I also know that they sometimes work amazingly well, other times not


sometimes it is 1+1, othertimes it is 1+1.61, then again 1+0, other times 1+something
  • #7,372
  • Oct 5, 2014 7:50am Oct 5, 2014 7:50am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} yes, thanks for showing this example. I know this setups, but I also know that they sometimes work amazingly well, other times not sometimes it is 1+1, othertimes it is 1+1.61, then again 1+0, other times 1+something
what about these 2 fibo targets which of them would you prefer to count

blue or red

i prefer the one on the pip
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Unbenannt.PNG Size: 26 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: 2222.PNG Size: 28 KB
  • #7,373
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:07am Oct 5, 2014 8:07am
Be the judge if 1+1 is always 2
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 5.png Size: 43 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 3.png Size: 42 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 2.png Size: 43 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 1.png Size: 42 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 4.png Size: 41 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 10.png Size: 51 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 9.png Size: 46 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 8.png Size: 42 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 7.png Size: 42 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 6.png Size: 42 KB
  • #7,374
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:09am Oct 5, 2014 8:09am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} yes, thanks for showing this example. I know this setups, but I also know that they sometimes work amazingly well, other times not sometimes it is 1+1, othertimes it is 1+1.61, then again 1+0, other times 1+something
wenn die targets von oben schon nicht passen, dann kommst du mit den Fibos unten in die Teufelsküche rein . Ich schaue immer das die targets passen und so counte ich die waves runterwärts. da passen die fibo targets und das labeling der wave, dass habe ich mir in Stein eingemeiselt. Wenn ich hier falsch liege - ja mein Gott - was solls dann sind halt 10 Pips kaputt und das auf Daily Basis.

was ist jetzt hier verkehrt wenn ich das so von oben lable und die 1.2502 noch passt und ich die EWs nach Fibo trade.

Das meine ich mit : Der fisch fängt am kopf an zu stinken

Wo ist hier das problem bei 1.2502 long zu gehen und 10 Pips SL zu riskieren.

Verstehst Du mich jetzt was ich meine ???? Wenn die Targets nach EW nicht passen dann nenne ich das Schöncounting.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: lable.PNG Size: 31 KB
  • #7,375
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:11am Oct 5, 2014 8:11am
3 more
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_2 Days_snapshot 13.png Size: 49 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 12.png Size: 48 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: Chart_EUR_USD_Daily_snapshot 11.png Size: 50 KB
  • #7,376
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:36am Oct 5, 2014 8:36am
Quoting infinitus
Be the judge if 1+1 is always 2 {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image}
Du bist garnicht so verkehrt gerade, aber welchen chart von diesen würdest du zum counting hernehmen????

diejenigen wo die fibos passen oder die anderen?????

wenn wir uns hier einig sind, können wir den schritt 2 einleiten wo dann 1+1 = 2 passt

OK handschlag ???
  • #7,377
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:38am Oct 5, 2014 8:38am
Quoting infinitus
Be the judge if 1+1 is always 2 {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image} {image}
i prefer this one
http://www.forexfactory.com/attachme...4&d=1412514371
  • #7,378
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:41am Oct 5, 2014 8:41am
Quoting Schickeria
{quote} what about these 2 fibo targets which of them would you prefer to count blue or red i prefer the one on the pip {image} {image}

OK, let us firstly ignore the absolut high which on your chart is 3985:

why should I use the first chart? You seem to imply, that the correction from 3503 was a triangle......, with a C-wave that in no way looks like an ABC-move but motiv wave

one can go with chart 2, which then would place the "standard" fibs also in consolidation zones



since the first wave down in my view (the wave 1) ended not at 3503, but at 3586, it gets a question, if the valid starting point for retracements/extensions isn such a situation is the wave 1 low, or the B-wave low of an ABC-flat wave 2


OK, back to 3985 for starting point of the whole wave down:


Bloomberg has 3993
Dukascopy has 3993
Netdania has 3994
Deutsche Bank has 3993

What is your source?
  • #7,379
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:44am Oct 5, 2014 8:44am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} OK, let us firstly ignore the absolut high which on your chart is 3985: why should I use the first chart? You seem to imply, that the correction from 3503 was a triangle......, with a C-wave that in no way looks like an ABC-move but motiv wave one can go with chart 2, which then would place the "standard" fibs also in consolidation zones since the first wave down in my view (the wave 1) ended not at 3503, but at 3586, it gets a question, if the valid starting point for retracements/extensions isn such a situation is the wave 1 low, or the...
reuters has 1.3992
  • #7,380
  • Oct 5, 2014 8:47am Oct 5, 2014 8:47am
Quoting infinitus
{quote} OK, let us firstly ignore the absolut high which on your chart is 3985: why should I use the first chart? You seem to imply, that the correction from 3503 was a triangle......, with a C-wave that in no way looks like an ABC-move but motiv wave one can go with chart 2, which then would place the "standard" fibs also in consolidation zones since the first wave down in my view (the wave 1) ended not at 3503, but at 3586, it gets a question, if the valid starting point for retracements/extensions isn such a situation is the wave 1 low, or the...
yes we should ignore the absolute top of the wave now - it's not relevant now - i'm sitting here with my notebook and can't watch my trading station, and tradingview is a shittly FXCM feed
3 traders viewing now