Wolfe

Tresor · #**531** 03-02-2010, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by thalestrader

But I suppose it must be a moderator.

I suppose the same. I was just curious if it was the same brilliant moderator who thinks there can be different implementations of range bars.

Originally Posted by thalestrader

I would suggest that if you wish to resume posting here, that you re-consider your approach and your tone toward the other members, and then start posting real time Wolfe wave's, which is, I presume, the subject matter of this thread.

Deleted where posts of educational value with diverging Wolfes. Hopefully BlowFish can testify such Wolfes are legitimate patterns once he decides to take an advanced course on Wolfe.

Hopefully my screenshots will be reposted then and beginners in Wolfe can learn the pattern (which is statistically more successful than a converging Wolfe).

Originally Posted by thalestrader

If instead you are looking for a fight, or simply an arena in which to flex your ego....

I am not looking for any of the above. I only got a little upset when TL's gurus on Wolfe are resistant to new knowledge, which I always thoght would never hurt.

Originally Posted by thalestrader

By the way, I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger, and don't ask me to where your black eye.

I am pro-peace.

no_sandbags · #**532** 05-04-2010, 07:44 PM

well now that the squabbling seems to be over . . .

thought i'd post a chart with a different take on things,
being that there's such a nice example from today on
the NQ, this is a 15 min chart

much of the talk about these waves is theory, and you
need theory to begin with, but as a practical matter its
best to pay attention to support and resistance in terms
of targets

some things to note on this chart . . .

1) the line from #1 to #3 is horizontal

2) the distance from #3 to #4 often gives a good projection
about where things are going to go

3) once that "flip level" is reached, the primary focus should
be on a counter (contra) wave forming

just food for thought . . .

[ATTACH][ATTACH]

[/ATTACH][/ATTACH]

waveslider · #**533** 05-04-2010, 07:51 PM

Welcome sandbagless,

Unfortunate about the bickering.

so you'd see the 1-3 line as balance for a mean reversion type trade. I can see that. The prob might lie when you examine volatility, if it is expanding then likely the #5 target would be over shot and the 1-3 line might not even be revisited.

Where would you have seen entries?

no_sandbags · #**534** 05-04-2010, 08:43 PM

hello waveslider,

the wave just gives a framework, there were entries all over the place

for starters the break of the (1,3) line was a short,
then there were momentum continuation plays on the way down
on smaller time frames, 5 min for instance. i mean there is
an assumption about where its going . . .

then the 1st time it hit 1958.00 @ 11:05 was a nice long

then the test back down . . . it ain't going to turn on a dime

the idea is that a smaller counter wave is going to form in that
area (flip level), so you just play the swings

the last 1/2 hour of the day rallied from 1957 to 1972,
triggering the contra. you do see the small sell wave at
the bottom, right ?

hell, Wolfe himself was just a scalper, wasn't he ?

no_sandbags · #**535** 05-04-2010, 09:28 PM

waveslider,

okay, here's a 5 min chart showing the counter
wave (contra) at the bottom. it triggered right at
the end of the day

so based off this little wave we'll be looking for a
"flip level" in the 1983 area tomorrow

does it always go to the "flip level" ? of course,
not . . . but it is a fairly common occurrence.
will it always stop at the "flip level" ? no again,
but one has to let the price action tell him these
things. and most importantly one needs a game
plan and a set of rules to follow

a bigger wave does have more meaning than a
smaller one, but its just one step at a time. if
it never gets back to the (1,3) line of the larger
wave, that's okay . . . and certainly not looking
for any (1,4) line move ;-)

waveslider · #**536** 05-04-2010, 10:40 PM

I see what you are saying, in this case subtract 2 from 3 and then add that amount to 3.

So the next step would be to define a flip level. Is it a double, triple test of a level?

The initial break of level 3 seems high risk/low reward. It would frequently be a false breakout. Probably the first re-test is the best entry from the opposite side of the flip-level.

Have you read the old posts by the chimp on the flip trade?

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/for...es-1714-5.html

no_sandbags · #**537** 05-05-2010, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by waveslider

I see what you are saying, in this case subtract 2 from 3 and then add that amount to 3.

So the next step would be to define a flip level. Is it a double, triple test of a level?

The initial break of level 3 seems high risk/low reward. It would frequently be a false breakout. Probably the first re-test is the best entry from the opposite side of the flip-level.

Have you read the old posts by the chimp on the flip trade?

well . . . not exactly, the points we are always using are #3 and #4.

just as in the original example:

1998 - 2038 = -40

1998 + (-40) = 1958 --- this IS the "flip level", just flipping #4 to the other side of #3

the difference between #3 & #4 is subtracted from #3 for a "buy wave",
and added to #3 for a "sell wave"

i glanced at the stuff you mentioned, but he's dealing with Keltner Bands,
this is just Wolfe Waves and the relationship between the #3 & #4 pts

i'm not telling anybody how to trade, or how to draw their lines, only
suggesting that you pay attention to the relationship between the #3
and #4 pts. quite often it is a way of quantifying where the "sweet zone"
is, and in my experience is much more beneficial than drawing some
line, the value of which is always changing as time goes on . . .

just food for thought

waveslider · #**538** 05-05-2010, 12:05 PM

in your picture above, the wolfe wave would actually be bearish target line going from 1-4. That assumes the 5 point is a false break.

I don't trade WW as I can't quantify me but it always fascinates me how often these patterns work (although my mind probably discards the ones that don't)

no_sandbags · #**539** 05-05-2010, 12:33 PM

you don't trade them ? aren't you the one who started this thread ?

just joking around . . .

okay, just as a bit of follow-up. you're right, the smaller wave at the
end of the day was a bearish (or sell) wave. still, my first assumption
is that its going to its "flip level"

this morning price went lower, so the 1958 level was just good for yesterday.
the first thing we want to do is check to see if there are any larger waves
in play, just go to a higher time frame and take a look

the following is a 60 min chart and we just go thru the process again
determining the "flip level". you do the math, i'm not making this up

just building on what we have learned. of course, one should always
be aware of the largest wave in play, so yes . . . we knew this yesterday

brownsfan019 · #**540** 05-05-2010, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tresor

I suppose the same. I was just curious if it was the same brilliant moderator who thinks there can be different implementations of range bars.
.

Are you not man enough to call the person out that you think is doing this? Go ahead, let us know who you think was deleting your posts. No need to act like a little child, act like a man and say who you think deleted your posts. Then head to the support area and file a complaint.

You are one funny, very disturbed person tresor.