ImpLaNT wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:48 am
There is nothing wrong with the fact that I failed in this trade because before that there were 5 profitable ones in a row. Even if I maintain this win/loss ratio, it will allow for constant positive dynamics, but I hope to improve these statistics through the constant improvement of my work.
Yes, Samm, you are right, trading pullbacks is extremely uncomfortable and dangerous. But the trouble is that the market spends 30% of the time in stratching phases and 70% in pullbacks. And we need to work with them too. Trading pullbacks is aerobatics, naturally associated with maximum risks.
I also absolutely agree that we need to be able to escape from a such trades in time as soon as you suspect and realize that something is wrong. This is exactly what I did when I traded the pullback in the previous case. Why didn't it work out this time??
The whole problem was that I was absolutely sure that the price had to go down in order to move n-2n KSO to the bottom line and complete the pullback. But in this case this did not happen. That is, we had a pullback that did not move n-2n KSO to the bottom line. Before this incident, I believed that even the minimum pullback depth must necessarily transfer at least n-2n to the opposite line.
P.S... Samm, I would like to hear your comments about n-2n KSO and the minimum pullback depth.
What we trade in markets is actual behaviour and in Orbit we are concerned with topological exactitudes to measure such behaviours rather than indications. for instance when we try to define "limits". By this I mean pivot matches. We have said that any point n - 5n that matches a 6n pivot (or Semaphore) is at some kind of limit. However, Semaphores are not stops but markers of depth and a stop or actual limit would be a 6n pivot + a change in 6n KSO direction (where for instance 6n KSO actually changed sign in the course of the move and where not, e.g. 6n KSO remained positive until a pivot in say a fall, we read that as an instantaneous change in KSO).
But the above are not "rules" as there are no rules in Orbit (which point is now well explained in the upcoming article), and only observable conditions and usually, in Orbit, we want to wait for affirmations of any supposed turn by taking an opinion from what Screenface is saying at a point of entry/exit, to judge implications.
Why? Because it all depends on where we are on the attractor and what behaviour price is exhibiting in general. Is price folding? Or stretching? Or looking like breaking out of FLE? Or looking like just about to initiate the begin of the FLE? What side move? Risk side or free-risk side? and so on. We have also said, that amplitudes are recursive (better explained in upcoming also), and that moves can be persistent or anti-persistent. So to cut a long story short a single point bouncing about in bounded space is not something you might legitimately specify a "limit" for but rather something you provide indications for to enable judgement in context.
To therefore address your question given the above I would argue that n -2n is an indication and not a specification of a limit. That a limit is a visual judgement of behaviour based strictly on no other sign but a pivot match. That on 6n pivot match we pace Orbit Screenface to determine what is going on and that is why in OrbitPlay Analysis I make clear that the ultimate indicator is the trader processing a market read. There is nothing to tell us do this or that so firm that it is inviolate, but everything (on Screenface), to tell us given our understanding that we trade a bijective function (a precise mathematical formulation), that the market is now doing this or that in terms of its up and down behaviour in range. Thus it is not a guess when your mind tells you from full Screenface read (whether it was just a glance of it you took), that price is falling or rising at any point. But that precludes benchmarking behaviour to specific indications such as n - 2n KSO must be at KSO (-) for price to react from a low in a pullback given a 6n point match. It is the system of pivoting that must take precedence in our read (indications merely help our judgement of context). Look I saw what happened in the specific case in question, the fluctuation was pretty deceptive in that price kept going up and down forever in FLE (which fact very much invites misreads like my case the last time), but I noticed that H4 pivoting at low kept getting shallower and shallower and not deeper and deeper and on the 4th pivot low (blackheads in M30 and H1 white in H4), price sleeved up so fast not sure anyone could have taken profit if trading down and then began a clear rotation out of space that then intensified and translated at an increasing rate of speed into the spike high we are only now coming out of, and this is what n -2n recorded correctly at less than KSO (-), I had traded down earlier and took profit on the lowest of the 4 blackheads that now defines that structure in history (very shitty profit), and was waiting to see price move to a position for a buy so was keenly watching because a) CMD1 b) TT was expanding and Cy very bullish c) pullback was too affine (shallow), d) and like I mentioned only yesterday as important no indication of 7n fractal pattern turn down e) 8n KSO had just joined virgin green in KSO (+) array f) but most critically and consciously one was observing fluctuation risk-side so was distrustful of a full fall even when the suggestion was that that was the only thing immediately on the table. But which was why I remained doubtful a rise until I saw full blast change in nSign then I joined the fray. I have gone to this detail to tell not just you but everyone that it is judgements we make based on many factors to trade a move but that we can get it right each time by a) being relaxed about our reads b) keeping theory in mind as the firm basis (e.g. I exited a good rise the last time when you actually traded up which was a lesson I learned for this trade to stay reminded always by the command). c) Patience to pace Screenface and make no hard conclusions outside of full ambiance or full - to near full synchrony on one side. It cannot be any other way with a variable that is unstable by definition (in and out of intermittency), etc.
So for instance look at my trade this morning another pullback and just after the second shot I took profit not even looking at KSO. Why? Because there was already a 6n pivot match (blackhead M30, H1), I am trading risk side and pullbacks are affine within a CMD 1 structure, etc. So yes we work within the famous "70/30" definition true or false, but when in risky space I stick with the basic pivoting (because indeed it is pivoting we focus on in chaos and not indications). Also and lets be very clear about this, a significant down move under current conditions would involve a change in 6n Fractal Patterns and I know that everyone wants to get in early (most of my losses involve this wanting to move before the market), but frankly that change for that expectation is not (and NEVER) late at all and is the exact cue we must wait for (takes forever in our minds but still orders is orders). So I know we were taught to rely on exact indicator values but that is to me not chaos. In chaos we rely on point to point translations and the general Screenface read to translate context and indications follow since they lag (still tricky but that is all we got and it works). Hope long answer does not put you off the points I state here to be considered and if you do not agree or see contradictions lets talk about it here because I think it is important to air some of these issues and try to find common understanding and agreement (2+2 = 4 in Chaos but under an unstable convention as I have tried to highlight above, a convention up to us to interpret correctly and be patient with).
PS: The other thing is the I showed screenshots of the FLE 1, 2, 3 cycle and every time this can be read in FLE up or down and also until that pattern completes there is no breakout and as such it is a very important dynamical structure watch in pacing the market. Usually, it would read 1, 2, 3 but could also extend beyond to say 4 like in the above case and that structure is what I was referring to as now being in history as blackheads in H1. I provided mentions in OrbitPlay Analysis and remember posting additional screenshots on that topic in thread but cannot recall where as thread has really grown fast. May be we can work on that as the standard pattern to use in tracking price in the FLE.