It's a simple method... More explore.. I like it 
- #23
- Sep 27, 2016 6:22am Sep 27, 2016 6:22am
- Joined Jan 2014 | Status: Trader | 1,783 Posts
Nothing triggered yesterday, but 2 out of my 3 have today. NU simply took off without me, but my levels are still valid for now so those pendings will remain for the time being.
Anyway I've used h4 instead of h1 for now because it's easier in terms of monitoring once every 4 hrs if nothing else, here's GU. I have several pending long sets.
I set is in play. Further longs are waiting to trigger.
As I said earlier, my plan (along the lines of HPs idea) is still being developed, but in general I think it is a relatively safe concept that he has, providing the directional bias is determined, and it's that particular point that really is the key to his idea I think.
Of course trades lose, we all know that, but his concept and applying it to pending orders at value levels I believe will improve success.
Some are bound to say...ah but it didn't trigger etc etc. which happens to be the case for me with NU as mentioned..... Well a no trade, whilst not a winning trade, is definitely not a losing trade either, and I accept it can be frustrating to see the train leave without me on board, but patience may still reward...time will tell.
I won't complicate this more than HP intended, so I'll keep my planning to myself for the time being.
I notice HP has not posted recently, nor has anybody else bothered to give their thoughts or ideas for that matter, so if no further interest, then I see no reason to post further either.
LL
Anyway I've used h4 instead of h1 for now because it's easier in terms of monitoring once every 4 hrs if nothing else, here's GU. I have several pending long sets.
I set is in play. Further longs are waiting to trigger.
As I said earlier, my plan (along the lines of HPs idea) is still being developed, but in general I think it is a relatively safe concept that he has, providing the directional bias is determined, and it's that particular point that really is the key to his idea I think.
Of course trades lose, we all know that, but his concept and applying it to pending orders at value levels I believe will improve success.
Some are bound to say...ah but it didn't trigger etc etc. which happens to be the case for me with NU as mentioned..... Well a no trade, whilst not a winning trade, is definitely not a losing trade either, and I accept it can be frustrating to see the train leave without me on board, but patience may still reward...time will tell.
I won't complicate this more than HP intended, so I'll keep my planning to myself for the time being.
I notice HP has not posted recently, nor has anybody else bothered to give their thoughts or ideas for that matter, so if no further interest, then I see no reason to post further either.
LL
- #25
- Sep 27, 2016 10:41am Sep 27, 2016 10:41am
- Joined Jan 2014 | Status: Trader | 1,783 Posts
{quote} hi Landline, thanks very much for your contribution! I'd be most interested to know what TP,SL you're using on 4hr. Or any other filters you might be using. I've been working on a different system past few days using fractals and these perhaps could be used in conjunction with the main setup covered in this thread. Still investigating!
Here's an image of GU from earlier which has developed pretty well. It will not be clear to you from this what my approach is to be fair, but the core of it is based upon your approach actually, but with my own slant on it.
I have 2 pending sets (I use 3 orders at same price for a single set btw with 3 separate tp's and all with the same s/l initially) that have not triggered at this point. One set did trigger and I hit my tp1 (10 pips) and tp2 (20 pips). The stop on TP3 has been adjusted to BE, and I've moved the tp to 150 pips which is now flexible enough to allow me a free trade at this point and/or take profit earlier depending on pa.
MM is very different for most people, but my objective is always to hit a reasonably easy target of tp1 and tp2, then do what I need to do with tp3.
My preference (with using your core idea) is still to use pending orders at a value price, and once again, those aspects are quite different for everyone which I realise.
I haven't finalised my own approach fully yet, but it's getting there, and I'll be fairly close I'd imagine by the weeks end once more trades are running.
The key however still remains determining a directional bias no matter how it's traded, and viewers need to put their focus into that as much as anything else imo.
- #29
- Sep 28, 2016 6:52am Sep 28, 2016 6:52am
- Joined Jan 2014 | Status: Trader | 1,783 Posts
Several of mine have triggered, and some have already hit tp1 or/and tp2.
Even NU retraced enough to trigger my first set, so pretty happy at present.
UC attached is a typical example as described before. TP1 & TP2 hit, s/l now adjusted on tp3 and tp3 target adjusted. The set is completely safe now with profit guaranteed, I need do nothing much now other than see whether I get into enough of a favourable position to consider another add on set, or whether the s/l gets hit first, I'll know that probably later today I expect, either way zero pressure now on this pair for me.
I won't bore everybody by posting all the trades I have in play, it's more to do with seeing/exploring some possibilities which have been prompted by HPs core idea, and in my case slightly adapting it to suit what I want to see out of it.
It would be interesting to see others join in with ideas along HPs concept for discussion.
Even NU retraced enough to trigger my first set, so pretty happy at present.
UC attached is a typical example as described before. TP1 & TP2 hit, s/l now adjusted on tp3 and tp3 target adjusted. The set is completely safe now with profit guaranteed, I need do nothing much now other than see whether I get into enough of a favourable position to consider another add on set, or whether the s/l gets hit first, I'll know that probably later today I expect, either way zero pressure now on this pair for me.
I won't bore everybody by posting all the trades I have in play, it's more to do with seeing/exploring some possibilities which have been prompted by HPs core idea, and in my case slightly adapting it to suit what I want to see out of it.
It would be interesting to see others join in with ideas along HPs concept for discussion.
- #35
- Sep 29, 2016 4:59am Sep 29, 2016 4:59am
- Joined Jan 2014 | Status: Trader | 1,783 Posts
A short entry set has triggered on retracement on CADJPY this morning from the m15 t/f in this instance.
This is some small evidence for now that smaller t/fs can still be effective. Tp1 was nearly hit on the initial continuation.....we will see what happens
This is some small evidence for now that smaller t/fs can still be effective. Tp1 was nearly hit on the initial continuation.....we will see what happens
- #36
- Sep 29, 2016 6:43am Sep 29, 2016 6:43am
- Joined Jan 2014 | Status: Trader | 1,783 Posts
A short entry set has triggered on retracement on CADJPY this morning from the m15 t/f in this instance. This is some small evidence for now that smaller t/fs can still be effective. Tp1 was nearly hit on the initial continuation.....we will see what happens {image}
It is now under some pressure there's no question about it, and perhaps I ought to have exited when in reasonable profit.
I didn't, and I'm sticking to my guns, and letting the stop do it's job if it has to instead.
This is a perfectly good example and a lesson of understanding that we cannot control the market but we can control our risk, and provided our perceived edge is still present, then that risk always remains (for me at least) until the trade becomes favourable or not as the case may be.
{quote} Btw, how is the fractal system going that you mentioned before that you felt might enhance your method further, any progress?
hi Landline, glad to see you're refining this to a method that works for you. The fractal idea was something I looked at a bit as a kind of filter but I think it might produce far too many false signals or let pips get away. Basic idea was is to wait for a fractal break to occur first followed by the 2 bar close. The 2bar close can actually be the bar that breaks the fractal. Just an idea...
- #38
- Sep 30, 2016 5:43am Sep 30, 2016 5:43am
- Joined Jan 2014 | Status: Trader | 1,783 Posts
{quote} hi Landline, glad to see you're refining this to a method that works for you. The fractal idea was something I looked at a bit as a kind of filter but I think it might produce far too many false signals or let pips get away. Basic idea was is to wait for a fractal break to occur first followed by the 2 bar close. The 2bar close can actually be the bar that breaks the fractal. Just an idea...
I notice you have a t/l drawn for example (I happen to use t/l's also but in a quite unique way outside of this thread for now), anyway the way you use your t/l can be coupled as I said with fractals.
Essentially, first determine the likely directional bias of either selling or buying, which in the case of AJ as in your image would be selling. Then draw your t/l as you have done, connecting the last 2 fractals, then when an opposing fractal appears and cuts a candle, then immediately place a market order sell trade.
This way, you should still be getting a reasonable "value" trade level and more importantly still in line with the directional bias.
These are just ideas for you to consider further if you are looking to take your fractal concept further.
Here's a screen shot of AJ with fractals as per your post which shows 2 possible trade set ups as an example of entries for sells using ur t/l idea. Note, for some reason I only have SFractals on my platform but the signal is identical to your fractals nevertheless.
Hopefully I haven't confused the whole issue, it's more of a food for thought post concerning your own ongoing improvement to your method really. Disregard if of no use ok.
LL
