[waveslider]

Here's one I just took in ES. This is a 3 min chart.

The one point was a little tricky to notice. The important thing to note is that the 1 pt. occurred in congestion. It was actually an inverse point, the momentum that broke out of the contracting pattern started wave 1.

The target line was drawn between pts. 1 and 4. The trigger line was drawn using pts. 1 and 3. Entry was near pt. 5. If you just took a breakout it was worth 2 pts.

I took this trade because of a variety of factors; Lack of intraday trend, ER2 under-performance indicated that an uptrend was unlikely, range would continue. If you look at the volume on the bars I circled, you can tell the story and see where people got psyched out.

Probably would have been good to watch the TICK or TIKI to look for extremes.

Again, you had to have a trained eye to catch that pt. #1. Looking at balance and wave dynamics helps.

[BlowFish]

I think I have had a mini :lightbulb: moment. (Where's the bulb emoticon when you need it). Just kind of ties in with a couple of things that I had observed for myself and had even started to trade. I love market geometry its just so cool (when it works). Wouldn't mind seeing the odd failure too, lots to be leant from them.

Cheers.

EDIT: Yes the 1 point is kind of tricky

[BlowFish]

Just for fun I drew a couple of lines from what to my eye where more obvious potential one points. (bear in mind I am a chanell man at heart) Both 'work' but give an overshoot on 5. Am I right in thinking overshooting 5 is allowable and actually quite desirable?

Any comments on the other potential 1's?

Cheers.

[BlowFish]

oops file got left off

[waveslider]

Ah ha! you have a pretty good grasp on market geometry! What you have identified is a balance point that those lines are shooting through.
Your point #1 is equally valid, I was being conservative with my point#1. In essence, my point#1 gave the first target, the other 2 you had were the next targets.
Personal preference note:
My 1-3 line was downward sloping for a bullish target. I like these wedge failures.

Do you use Andrew's lines, Blowfish?

Also - there's a great book on channelling by a guy named M. Parsons called Channel-Surfing. A cheesy cover but very good book.

[vae victis]

hey guys,

I am new to this posting thing so please bear with me if I don't get it quite right the first time (trying to become a reformed 'lurker').

I am very intrigued by Wolfe Waves, and been trying to learn about them for the past few days. I would like to post a 4 minute chart on todays YM. The 4 minute TF is new for me (usually use 1 & 2 min), but wanted to try something new - swings instead of scalps maybe. I drew this WW in real time on the 1120 (central) bar. As indicated on the chart, 13840 looked like a good entry so I entered a limit order at that level. Based on the WW that I drew, I realize that looks to be a bit early/high, however, it looked like I would only take about 9-10 ticks of heat on the failure of this pattern. As it turned out, it missed me by 2 ticks, no big deal as I was happy that I was able to see this in real time and it appeared to be a valid pattern to me, UNLESS....my perceptions on this particular chart are completely wrong.

I have some limited experience with various markets but I consider myself a beginner at trading and I would be grateful for any feedback on this.

Thank you very much,
VV

[waveslider]

There was a pattern here, but unfortunately you didn't see it according to the chart you posted.

If you use a conservative entry, the trade was not activated since the cyan line went unbroken. If you fade the entry this was a pattern failure.

It was a pretty ugly one all around. If point 5 would have appeared a little earlier it probably would have worked. The target line was the line connecting 1 and 4.

I advise you to go to wolfe's website and study the pattern again.

[BlowFish]

I used to use pitchforks a year or two back they are a phenomenal tool. In the end I went back to using plain old hand drawn lines - channels in particular. They just 'speak to me' more i think.

Vae I wont comment on Wolfe as all I know is what I have read that is freely available. The thing is once you start to see geometry its everywhere, Then the tools don't matter so much its just a question of using them consistently.

You mention balance points Wave, ....ever come across a guy called Michael Parsons?