Pattern's Chemo-Electric Trading Journal

I got the 'axis' idea both from my post in and while visiting another ff member's thread -- aka, moving averages and such -- , the word 'axis' being a measure of size above and below a line drawn on the chart.
This addition to the method did well for me below:

For the first time, I got the small- and the large-picture. I surprised myself enough to miss a trade because I didn't pay enough attention to how the large picture was going.

The 'big picture' would mean the several parallel grey lines in the picture below. I was looking for some break in the build upwards, not figuring for a high level that price turns vertical on. I got my break, but didn't notice price broke simply to stabilize on a high level. My guess is that an "anchor"-type organizing pattern would've been enough, with the 'very small part of the area stands distinctly separate' being an angle to vectors pointing that former rise between those grey lines straight up -- and this knocked out my trade.




To reflect this occurrence of me getting the large-picture on a trading chart,
after another try in practice so that at least I didn't lose everything when I did get the large-picture with the persective method,
I inserted such in post #1:


"
1. how the chart flowed in whatever smaller-spaced patterns the chart area presented. With smaller curves and smaller and extended triangles;
as well, how the chart stacks up in bigger-spaced patterns the chart area presented,
since one enters and exits the small areas and the bigger-spaced patterns are between the two.
"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To add to the patterns in the last post -- that stuff about aligning with the bigger picture --
I, this time, found an anchor to justify clearly doing such a thing.
Below, there are two solid circles on either side of a line -- sorry about all the other lines mess --
that seem to, as stated, create a solid foundation for the big move that happened next.

That big move, as in the last post, had several parallel grey lines to guide the move upward.
However, when it came the time for price to anchor into a different-angle line,
price seemed to leap off -- as I now look back at the chart -- the higher solid circle,
making it instead of, as the last post's chart examples had, a plain horizontal line.

So I have to check for variation in how the big move decides, both on the base and what it does as it leaves the big move.

I added this in post#1:

"
Because it'll be how one thinks of the majority of the chart one studies, check for variation in how the big move decides, both on the base and what it does as it leaves the big move."

This last post led to an appreciation of how the biggest- as well as the smallest(/er)- picture can change on the fly:
If I don't find those parallel lines, then at least I should shoot a line backward to see if a halfway point between two lines is why price is there now -- and I did, as found in the last chart picture below.



Okay, I checked the charts again, and that backward (yellow) half-between line wasn't perfectly between. It was close enough to close the trade, at least .




---------------------------------------------------------------


Instead of just framing small and lining big portions of the chart,
I'm trying here to line up non-line repetitions to get -- no, show -- the underlying feel of where the chart is going.
Lots of times a line is not enough, close-up, and besides, there can be too many lines on the chart, so simply staying close as that chart moved,
then I can support the often-moving chart.
There are implied radiuses to the circles shown in the chart picture below, so that's what'd lead me to trade what I did in the third trade shown:


I post-trade added the last downward circle, to show its radius guided the way, and the circles before it gave precidence to pay attention to a circle.
I guess I could call this, 'tracking the tilt' .

Alright, I'm dumping the method.

It's all explanatory and ordered, but it doesn't get to the point of it.

So I'm moving on to an apparently-simpler method -- and, I'll include the seminal part of the last method.

----------------------

Perspective

organizing patterns , applicable to the "from" pieces:
range -- on the ups and downs seem rather random
equal -- the small shapes are equal, to some degree
vector -- the candles simply make a straight line
anchor -- most of the area fits in a well-defined area, and a very small part of the area stands distinctly separate from the well-defined area; the lines are at an angle
balance -- two areas opposite each other by balancing off each other, thus achieving this type of symmetry

NOTE: I use the dot a lot as a conceptualization of what both bases every shape and stands also as a shape itself. Oh, and a circle has infinite radiuses.
While I tried to make the picture self-evident as it goes from "from" to "to",
one can also, of course, have an ordinary-looking channel between two parallel lines, a range of lines containing an area, and other mixes of the eight shapes.


----------------------

























-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Old-method dump:

""

The tools --
news reading;
perspective method to handle near-random patterns on the chart;
multi-symbol consensus of news reaction on chart around that news' time posted;
actual-trader consensus with simple averaging lines on the chart;
and, any patterns that consistently show up on a chart for a particular symbol and/or a particular symbol's group of symbols.

Below is only to address randomness, which is as of now the only one I do -- and I only practice --, thus allowing trading at any time:

PERSPECTIVE Trading

This charting method, while being only used in practice (non-$) trading since that's all I do,
may help others through at least thinking about how it works, thus at least helping to improve their own charting methods.

The idea of the method is to avoid
an overly-simple use of a set pattern that is resembled on the chart
and not
an organization-only description of whatever patterns are there.


The method is:

shapes:
position -- dot (w/persp.,"of") -- cause and effect -- line (w/persp., "+-") -- responsibility -- object (w/persp., how a vector runs thru a bunch of dots inside an object(/area))
A dot has a position.
A dot, being at every point along it, is thus and as well the cause and effect of a line.
Any object that places that line in some perspective and thus allows other objects to take action on that line, takes responsibility for that line; too, any part of that object shares the responsibility.

those shapes' dimensions:
A dot has 0D (D for dimension).
A line has 1D if parallel with an axis and 2+D if not; thus, a line is axis-dependent due to what angle(s) the line has.
An object has 2+D.

organizing-patterns' terms:
Looking up carat( ^ ): What I mean is a caret (or carot or several other words describing a ^ ) that is on its side twice, first as a lesser-than and then as a greater-than, thus creating a range of positions with a lesser or greater value of a particular topic.
The equal is simply = , or rather | | to include a bit of y axis on an extensive part of the x axis.
Vector, in Latin or rather, it said, New Latin (and thus which I looked it up on the Internet, because I'm kinda reinventing the wheel on this one, and so looked for support in my conclusion of equations etc.), is carrier, I suppose thus carrying ones energy (along each new position of a topic) from one place to another. It may also act as an axis or a line segment, the former providing high-low size-and-balance way to measure and the latter a termporary aligning that can be built upon.
An anchor is a dot of a position that relates an object to a line.
I do use a tilde to represent balance, I may add; this shows that the two areas are opposite each other both on the x and y axis within each, even while being together on one axis.

On a time-based chart, that is, a pair of x and y axes, with time on one axis, the terms above need their
organizing-patterns' on-chart subdefinitions:
range -- on the ups and downs seem rather random
equal -- the small shapes are equal, to some degree
vector -- the candles simply make a straight line
anchor -- most of the area fits in a well-defined area, and a very small part of the area stands distinctly separate from the well-defined area
balance -- two areas opposite each other by balancing off each other, thus achieving this type of symmetry


-----------------------

-->Additional points about using this method -- ones that may be used or ignored, as you see fit
(just focus on the five organization patterns and however you draw around them,
if you want to quickly take something from the method
and its extra optional points below (with the news point above))
is below:

1. how the chart flowed in whatever smaller-spaced patterns the chart area presented. With smaller curves and smaller and extended triangles;
as well, how the chart stacks up in bigger-spaced patterns the chart area presented,
since one enters and exits the small areas and the bigger-spaced patterns are between the two.
Because it'll be how one thinks of the majority of the chart one studies, check for variation in how the big move decides, both on the base and what it does as it leaves the big move.
2. a trade in the weekend gap. Yes, I know how it usually plays -- beware the gap and play the retrace, traditional wisdom usually says.
3. fiddling with the between-candles distance with the new position of the lines I had installed before the gap.
4. adapted the literal explanation of that pattern organization to fit the circumstances of a whole bunch of chart after this "anchor" area providing a sizeable vector right through the "anchor" area
5. once I tested a retracing backward use of a built-in MT4 pattern device (a necessary thing, often, in this method.
​I also add some points about trading in general, that most traders likely inherently know -- So, no offence, it may be more just a reminder for me, since all this is simply (,as it has been and will (likely) be,) practice and thus there is no constant (even obsessive) reminder when it's real (, as I recall) :
1. Make that space between where you want to exit and where the chart drawn point to exit at is, to account for what the broker wants from the trade.
2. Also: Forget your own error, that's what the stop is for
3. that is, unless the chart figuring you figure was too loose to just let it fly.
​


-------------------------

As for news :
I don't cover it in this journal.

I still hold that one has to characterize how the chart reacts to it, and watch for repetitions of this pattern around it, at significant later dates. The rl method -- though my last rendition of its description -- does especially well at this, because set patterns don't need organizing patterns around them, as news (and the original story opening that symbol, in some symbol-type instances) acts in that role.

Consensus among actual-trader consensus (source) and how it deviates among very simple averaging lines across the chart, usually changing consensus on the longer-term charts.
Average-term, consensus is among several symbols in a group, around news in the average time period and about how much that news affects them, as shown through each of these symbols using about the same chart pattern, is a way that is (,after figured from noted source from a dedicated indicator. Maybe the news' consensus pattern between forex symbols does repeat at least for a while, it thus becoming an rl pattern.
Finally, the extremely shortterm chart period is usually random, though often not around big news, I've found. Thus does this method address mere randomness, as described in this post, up to "news".

I'm not gonna try and figure what a piece of news itself means, in terms of changed numbers of finance news etc., as this is a specialty that is separate from plain charting. Such can be a substitution for the chart itself, if one is good enough at it, and where one isn't, the chart pitches in.
I have, of course, studied it in depth, to get roller language from stocks and for figuring some forex from its news.
My practice, however, has been, besides rl, general reading of the chart -- with pre-set patterns I got elsewhere and made up myself. I found I was taking them too seriously, and the method this post describes gets me past this.

"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though it was nice dealing with less, the figuring drawn picture was a little rough.
Here's a substitute (and thus the redo for post#1):


-------------------------


"
.........................................................................................Perspective

organizing patterns , applicable to the "from" pieces:
range -- on the ups and downs seem rather random
equal -- the small shapes are equal, to some degree
vector -- the candles simply make a straight line
anchor -- most of the area fits in a well-defined area, and a very small part of the area stands distinctly separate from the well-defined area; the lines are at an angle
balance -- two areas opposite each other by balancing off each other, thus achieving this type of symmetry

NOTE: I use the dot a lot as a conceptualization of what both bases every shape and stands also as a shape itself. Oh, and a circle has infinite radiuses.
While I tried to make the picture self-evident as it goes from "from" to "to",
one can also, of course, have an ordinary-looking channel between two parallel lines, a range of lines containing an area, and other mixes of the eight shapes.



"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Couple of thoughts about those first five points you wrote.

Im thinking about how to trade with the smart money. So what we want to do is identify their entries. Its my understanding that there are lots of stupid trades or trades that we need not bother understanding. And this seems to fit with what you wrote. What happens within in a well defined is unimportant, and for all intents and purposes "random". I can give chart examples if thats any use. And then as it goes through the range, maybe it goes pretty fast and you get in that action and you cash in within 15 minutes or so. The kind of thing when it moves in a pretty much straight line, that to me is smart money moving the market. Often that kind of thing goes for say... average 32 pips on E/U. The fourth kind, the one you gave the chart example of, thats a range i would say, with a less defined floor in the time you took the trade. It knocks out the roof but doesnt go much up, so hopefully close that in a win BEFORE it gets down INTO the range again. And then enter as it goes through the floor. I honestly would NOT have known to enter as you did, i see not the systematics for it, but applaud that trade as a great one.

Hey, yaed!

Thanks for contributing.
"systematics" sounds a good one, I'd certainly like to achieve that one.

Also, thanks for inspiring me in your last post here.


--------------------------------------------------------



Well, that -- this last method in my last post here -- didn't work. On to another method.

This one is put in all the triangles and circles, and then figure where some parallel lines fit well.



example:

It's obvious this wasn't a good trade, drawdown and late exit.
But from so little, I got so much.

I never would've noticed how important these lines were,
without the new method.




What I'm doing different here,
is to really focus on how the chart is flowing along, and then imbed parallel lines so that I have to hand-draw them in, instead of merely stickin' n' goin'. For a little while today/yesterday, I was simply throwing a whole bunch of those built-in grouped lines -- Gann fan, fibo nested half-circles, etc. -- and then erasing them after I got some good points, lines, etc. This is an okay idea, maybe, but I was losing my awareness of the deepest moves; so, I'm trying this new method, instead.






-------------


My last post fully contained the method that was in post#1.



--------------------


Alright, that didn't work, or only worked once briefly.

So what may be better,
is to get several solid methods , apply them every time to the chart, and make what I can of it.



-------------------------------



AGAIN!

Now, a circle and a significant division along the price candles connecting through a line thru the circle's center. Add fan -- Gann or fib, whichever fits -- and pick out a line or two to draw over that/those significant line(s), before checking off that circle, erasing its fan, and moving on to the next circle. Continue this until get all the curves, i.e. circles in terms of how to represent them. Go over the lines and try and eliminate the apparently less-rewarding ones. Finally, decide where to trade.

In short:
1) curve
2) radius
3) fan
4) Draw over fan.
5) As repeat, erase lesser lines.

OKAY,now,
get the flow and the rest will follow.
the same circle-radius deal where go from break in the candles flow, but sometimes this isn't fitting. Then series of triangles does the SAME THING!
So that's great, and if I can't fit either one, then a simple line, or complex frame if directional lines go to these, too. Sometimes it's more appropriate to do a line not connecting to the center of a filled shape, too.

I like this, because I'm comfortable with it.
The example below shows me messing up bad,
but it also shows very well how price chugs along and then, though not very well-shown, makes its break down.
The reason I include it, is to show how price obviously flows with the radiuses idea:

Most people deal with optical illusions right on the chart.
Thus, I figure it'd be a good idea to apply them to putting patterns on charts to read them for a trade

A rule from here (pg. 1) states that
"This apparent expansion of the acute angle occurs
at the angles between 0 and 90 in the Zllner illusion
(Morinaga, 1933; Wallace & Crampin, 1969). On
the other hand, in the tilt illusion, the acute-angle expansion
appears at the angles between 0 and 50, and, to the
contrary, the acute-angle contraction, called the indirect
effect, occurs at the angles between 50 and 90..."

As this is a rule on how a person may view a chart as expanding,
I test an application of it in the following,
holding back from any extra chatter-lines until I directly anchor a line from the conclusion of this rule's application:


The tactic paid off, modestly in terms of my commitment and grandly in terms of the method:


So then, I worked with the method some more, and its clarity increased --



Last one, I'm tired, even tho the method still works, and I just skipped drawing lines for the last trade, and that's a bad sign:




-----

To conclude, you can put any shape up there, as long as its angles repeat from one of that shape to its next; the axis, of course, can change; and, there's no reason to miss a really-off-angling shape -- one can just consider it to be off the beaten path, and throw a multiple-lines pattern off it to see if it especially lines up to justify using it.


drop-copy of the last method:

"
get the flow and the rest will follow.
the same circle-radius deal where go from break in the candles flow, but sometimes this isn't fitting. Then series of triangles does the SAME THING!
So that's great, and if I can't fit either one, then a simple line, or complex frame if directional lines go to these, too. Sometimes it's more appropriate to do a line not connecting to the center of a filled shape, too.
"

The method needed some additions, such as whatever big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns may fit in, and a genuine purpose for circles. Circle have infinite number of radiuses, so when they're showing a perfectly-balanced-within set of candles, that's beyond the <>50-degree angle rule (as I take it, from the source quoted in the last post). It's something to, this 'perfectly' being more or less the case, connect the dots a bit more between <>50d that suggest whether or not price'll expand and thus veer from, or contract and thus stick to, the direction one's big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.

So that's a slight modification from the last post's new method, adapting into it what I've picked up in the several posts before then.

Here's in chart pictures, what I mean:




-- Oh, and I hung onto the older big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.
They were pretty good, most of them (that is, the one Gann fan, in the example below), so it seems like a good habit to start -- even though I'll have to prune them once in a while.

Okay, so the method from the past two posts, is:


"

charting method 48b

Most people deal with optical illusions right on the chart.
Thus, I figure it'd be a good idea to apply them to putting patterns on charts to read them for a trade:

A rule from here (pg. 1) states that
"This apparent expansion of the acute angle occurs
at the angles between 0 and 90 in the Zllner illusion
(Morinaga, 1933; Wallace & Crampin, 1969). On
the other hand, in the tilt illusion, the acute-angle expansion
appears at the angles between 0 and 50, and, to the
contrary, the acute-angle contraction, called the indirect
effect, occurs at the angles between 50 and 90..."


One can put any shape up there, as long as its angles repeat from one of that shape to its next; the axis, of course, can change; and, there's no reason to miss a really-off-angling shape -- one can just consider it to be off the beaten path, and throw a multiple-lines pattern off it to see if it especially lines up to justify using it. For strictly doing an angle, a triangle helps imagine it, especially to trace, with a line between triangle centers, the price candles' path along the way.

The method needed some additions, such as whatever big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns may fit in, and a genuine purpose for circles. Circle have infinite number of radiuses, so when they're showing a perfectly-balanced-within set of candles, that's beyond the <>50-degree angle rule (as I take it, from the source quoted in the last post). It's something to, this 'perfectly' being more or less the case, connect the dots a bit more between <>50d that suggest whether or not price'll expand and thus veer from, or contract and thus stick to, the direction one's big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.

Hang onto the older big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.
They are often pretty good, most of them (that is, the one Gann fan, in the example below), so it seems like a good habit to start -- even though I'll have to prune them once in a while.


"

-- The title's kinda silly, I just tired of rewriting methods when I'm at least basing one on something solid from a second party.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renamed method as "angle", since that's the anchor of it.


An example of it that's fairly stable and representative, if not extensive:

Okay, in this use of the angle method,
at least it's more clear that the only difference between uses/examples now
is that going up and down is the implier of said difference
-- thus, different shapes applied to the screen,
while cleanly staying within the method:




--

I multiplied up this 'up-and-down now' idea to create a grid that price did work with:

Okay, that method --

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"

angle

Most people deal with optical illusions right on the chart.
Thus, I figure it'd be a good idea to apply them to putting patterns on charts to read them for a trade:

A rule from here (pg. 1) states that
"This apparent expansion of the acute angle occurs
at the angles between 0 and 90 in the Zllner illusion
(Morinaga, 1933; Wallace & Crampin, 1969). On
the other hand, in the tilt illusion, the acute-angle expansion
appears at the angles between 0 and 50, and, to the
contrary, the acute-angle contraction, called the indirect
effect, occurs at the angles between 50 and 90..."


One can put any shape up there, as long as its angles repeat from one of that shape to its next; the axis, of course, can change; and, there's no reason to miss a really-off-angling shape -- one can just consider it to be off the beaten path, and throw a multiple-lines pattern off it to see if it especially lines up to justify using it. For strictly doing an angle, a triangle helps imagine it, especially to trace, with a line between triangle centers, the price candles' path along the way.

The method needed some additions, such as whatever big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns may fit in, and a genuine purpose for circles. Circle have infinite number of radiuses, so when they're showing a perfectly-balanced-within set of candles, that's beyond the <>50-degree angle rule (as I take it, from the source quoted in the last post). It's something to, this 'perfectly' being more or less the case, connect the dots a bit more between <>50d that suggest whether or not price'll expand and thus veer from, or contract and thus stick to, the direction one's big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.

Hang onto the older big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.
They are often pretty good, most of them (that is, the one Gann fan, in the example below), so it seems like a good habit to start -- even though I'll have to prune them once in a while. Finally:
Bring use of the angle method to be refined enough to be only a simple and straight-forward -enough use of the angle method to be an 'up-and-down now' idea.

"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- worked for a while, but after a while, the optical-illusion gimmick got overwhelmed by the rest of the method,
however well good discipline could have worked. The method is fairly straight-forward,
just a little picky.



Okay, here's another method, one based on the kernel of the very long method one or two before this one.
I don't really feel like explaining it, as I keep switching, anyway. Beyond this, all I did was order and number-qualitative two pairs in that short-list kernel.
That kernel:
"organizing patterns , applicable to the "from" pieces:
range -- on the ups and downs seem rather random
equal -- the small shapes are equal, to some degree
vector -- the candles simply make a straight line
anchor -- most of the area fits in a well-defined area, and a very small part of the area stands distinctly separate from the well-defined area; the lines are at an angle
balance -- two areas opposite each other by balancing off each other, thus achieving this type of symmetry
"
Only I looked for symmetry this time, and also changed "vector" into something else and "anchor...angle" back into what it was before.
I then linked 'range' and 'equal', linked what is now at the "anchor...angle" spot with what is now at the "vector" spot.
Finally, I put balance alone in the middle of it all.
With this list, I labelled the out-most -- i.e., first, in the last sentence -- pair all or none,
the next-in -- i.e., second, in the last sentence -- pair some,
and the middle thing two.
The smaller shapes, you can ignore, as I use those in a place not in trading.




Okay, I have a modest example of this new method, one I'm not explaining, 'cause, well, if the method'll stick, then....



Now that I look at it, I did use the method directly before this new one, 'cause it's still valid.
It's just that the old kernel, upgraded very slightly, does a good job cleaning up what's happening on the screen,
as a skillful use of lines -- which is about all the method directly before this new one is -- fills in where the revised old kernel leads.


-- I tried it a second time, and I messed up. So, I dropped the picture with stuff that don't even apply to this new kernel-based method,
and I guess I'll come back to it some time.

I made another trading-chart patterns-drawing method after the one above and currently in post #1,
but I then found it wasn't so much the method I was drawing, as how I thought therein
to find and properly do a trade within whatever I made of the chart section I was to (potentially) trade.

I did reach the point in my own ptm that I can do math within in it. However, I'd probably have the same difficulty using my ptm as I do trading upon the figuring of patterns drawn on a trading chart to configure where to trade on its next section, even though, no, because underneath my own ptm is biological and underneath a trading chart is a similar "biological", that of lots of opinions of where the chart'll go next.

So, I'll try to simplify this difficulty not on the biol/infinite-opinions side, and instead on the rules-based side of how my own ptm and drawn trading-chart patterns are made:


Here's an interesting pattern-recognition set of ways one thinks of them:
http://www.foundalis.com/res/poc/Pri...fCognition.htm .
The person says they're derived from https://www.google.com/search?q=Bong...hrome&ie=UTF-8 .
It'd take a while to get through all that,
but it also seems that Bongard-Problem type thinking of patterns
is, to me (at least, now), the mere middle of two other problems that time presents when intersected with one -- as in trading charts -- two, or three -- both as in a simplified drawing and/or ordinary objects in space -- dimensions -- thus providing a perhaps-unnecessary addition to how patterns act.
Then a simpler problem would be consideration of only one pattern i.e. shape, say, a hyperbola, which some consider to be easy to bring a third dimension into the mix with. And, a more-complex problem would be consideration of a pathway, that is, a single vector with numerically-representational features of twists and turns, such as using the fibonacci series to make a shape through the (Euler?-)Binet formula.

I'm just running off the mouth,
at the same time I offer some links that add perspective to drawing shapes onto a trading chart all day long --
An interest, at least.
The more I get into this, though, the more I realize it's possible I must configure these cognitive pattern-making rules and apply them within the range I just offered, if I am to trade at all -- practice, even, with enough justification.

Finally, I got another chart-trading method worth anything.
I can't say so beyond a single practice trade,
but at least it's something:




I'll try to explain it in time; it's very simple, but untested.


----

Okay, I tested it again, and it works fine. The thing is, the method works as a combination psychology-technicals method -- apparently, the only way I could probably pull through.
Of course, it may only be that I happen to feel okay today, and tomorrow'll be different.
I am pleased at the stability I gain from the method (unpublished, as of yet).
And I use just about any chart drawing I feel like at the time; if it doesn't seem to fit the chart, I'll just erase it all and try another, and thus more-informed often, group of chart drawing.
So at least I feel I can keep trading (in practice), because I no longer feel uncomfortable about getting out of a bad trade, and I time that pretty well. So my account doesn't suffer too much from between-trades kind of "drawdown". And this is what I mean by "psychology-".


-----

Third test worked fine, too. I missed a big opportunity, but hey, I didn't lose after three trades and a couple of days on the practice charts (same as usual -- noted how somewhere in older posts).
So sometimes I lose, other times I miss an opportunity: No sweat, at least I stay even or better over time -- and only the first one only broke even.
So it seems trading is all about the psych, at least at the level of practice trading. The rest of it is something one can get the feel of over time, all that drawing and its interpretation I mean.

Some graphing type of submethod to match the trade-management part of the method:

Okay, finally I'm putting win-lose limits into each(, as always, practice) trade.

It's no big deal to most people, I'd imagine; I just had a big-enough problem getting past all those patterns one can put on the chart.

I just put in the possible other-way chart technicals in,
keep a hold on how much I think it could go either way,
and, if the trade still warrants my investment, I get into it.

Radically changed my method again, so forgot the last post's lesson; I'll include it in the next practice trade.

In this next method, I really did simplify the technicals -- although the option to complicate them is, still open.
I use a grid -- vertical and horizontal lines, where applicable -- , an anti-grid -- any 45D - or - so (50D, too, I'd guess) --, and a grid-maker -- curves, as represented in MT4 by circles (or, rather, ellipses).

Then, the 50D illusion, which may or may not decide direction, stays:
The 'A rule from here ( https://www.google.com/search?q=Three+elemental+illusions+determine+the+Z%C3%B6llner+illusion&oq=Three+elemental+illusions+determine+the+Z%C3%B6llner+illusion&aqs=chrome..69i57.352523430j0j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ) (pg. 1) states that
"This apparent expansion of the acute angle occurs
at the angles between 0 and 90 in the Zllner illusion
(Morinaga, 1933; Wallace & Crampin, 1969). On
the other hand, in the tilt illusion, the acute-angle expansion
appears at the angles between 0 and 50, and, to the
contrary, the acute-angle contraction, called the indirect
effect, occurs at the angles between 50 and 90..." '

-------------------------------------------------------------


Test 1:

The little squares highlight price's slow response to the grid line I put in there.
I didn't figure, nor draw in, the second big 45 / 50D rise in price, in terms of how proportioned its possible affect on the big curve and the first 45 / 50D rise combination would be.
So I closed the first trade too early and over-downdraw'ed the second trade.














---------------------------------------------



old-method (post #1) dump:



"

angle

Most people deal with optical illusions right on the chart.
Thus, I figure it'd be a good idea to apply them to putting patterns on charts to read them for a trade:

A rule from here ( https://www.google.com/search?q=Three+elemental+illusions+determine+the+Z%C3%B6llner+illusion&oq=Three+elemental+illusions+determine+the+Z%C3%B6llner+illusion&aqs=chrome..69i57.352523430j0j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ) (pg. 1) states that
"This apparent expansion of the acute angle occurs
at the angles between 0 and 90 in the Zllner illusion
(Morinaga, 1933; Wallace & Crampin, 1969). On
the other hand, in the tilt illusion, the acute-angle expansion
appears at the angles between 0 and 50, and, to the
contrary, the acute-angle contraction, called the indirect
effect, occurs at the angles between 50 and 90..."


One can put any shape up there, as long as its angles repeat from one of that shape to its next; the axis, of course, can change; and, there's no reason to miss a really-off-angling shape -- one can just consider it to be off the beaten path, and throw a multiple-lines pattern off it to see if it especially lines up to justify using it. For strictly doing an angle, a triangle helps imagine it, especially to trace, with a line between triangle centers, the price candles' path along the way.

The method needed some additions, such as whatever big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns may fit in, and a genuine purpose for circles. Circle have infinite number of radiuses, so when they're showing a perfectly-balanced-within set of candles, that's beyond the <>50-degree angle rule (as I take it, from the source quoted in the last post). It's something to, this 'perfectly' being more or less the case, connect the dots a bit more between <>50d that suggest whether or not price'll expand and thus veer from, or contract and thus stick to, the direction one's big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.

Hang onto the older big-bunch-of-lines built-in patterns and whatever line or lines one picks from them.
They are often pretty good, most of them (that is, the one Gann fan, in the example below), so it seems like a good habit to start -- even though I'll have to prune them once in a while. Finally:
Bring use of the angle method to be refined enough to be only a simple and straight-forward -enough use of the angle method to be an 'up-and-down now' idea.
"



--------------------------------------------



Oh, and I retired the 'random-motion' gif.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After a lot of bad trading, and including last post's info, I finally made it with this new method.
After and with slightly -- in appearance, not concept -- adjusting older technicals, I do have to add in longterm lines from anti-grid more often, to watch out for such bad trading:




I did figure on the drop to a new longterm level, after a fashion, and then a jump off it,
but I didn't consider how the longterm upper -- the first big level, shown first in this post -- and lower -- shown below -- compare in strength. I assumed price would, at least a little, jump between the upper and lower longterm levels, but they did not, and instead ran through the upper level after establishing a very strong lower level (again -- shown below):

Hi!


Hope you are doing good, what ever that means to you.
I came to think of you, as i do every once in 2 months of technical analysis or so.
But im going ahead of the story i feel. What really happend was that i came up with an idea 120 seconds ago: To use psychoanalysis on price. Or rather to try to use psychoanalysis on what people are probably, in general thinking when they are looking at price. And this idea directly connected to you and in my minds eye i could see your avatar. So here i am, some 200 seconds later, looking at my E/G H4 chart.

I choose H4 since i want to make quite general statements over a long period of days. Also i think a lot of people are watching H4. And i choose the latest few days because otherwise it would seem like a chose a specific point in time that i have been thinking about for a long time or that is especially "easy" or some such thing. And i dont want to do that. I want to it right now and see what happens.

The reason i do this is because of i, or you, or somebody else can understand what other people are thinking, that can be used to place positions. Meaning if it would seem sellers are unlikely to keep selling, then its time to buy and vice versa.

One issue though, this is being done backwards in time. Meaning i cant "be wrong". But normal psychoanalysis suffers from this as well.