Below is the link to a shared folder on Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... share_link

This currently holds 3 videos that total about 17 hours of continuous recording of GBPUSD M30.
You can see how a magenta zigzag crown high develps then moves higher, then how price drops into the MRI and subsequently "falls out" of it, moving a crown low (aqua zigzag) further down. You can now follow how all of the Orbit indicators are changing as this transition occurs and compare the entry methods that DarkDoji posted earlier.

The next portion of the continuous series will be uploaded to the folder tomorrow.
It is suggested that you download the videos rather than trying to watch them online. You might get a dialog that incudes "video is still processing". This is related to the system preparing the video for immediate viewing and has no effect on being able to simply download it.

May someone help me please, I don´t see any blue or gold arrows in my chart, in fact I never did, is there something wrong with my orbit file? or ar the blue and gold colors unnecessary for trading with it?

Mescalito wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 3:18 pm May someone help me please, I don´t see any blue or gold arrows in my chart, in fact I never did, is there something wrong with my orbit file? or ar the blue and gold colors unnecessary for trading with it?

Ensure that the first ZigZag Pointer indicator has All timeframes selected as shown.

Practic Lesson 02
Stratching and folding on the charts

So, in general, we figured out the question of what lies behind the term "Strange attractor" and how it looks on the charts, and also learned how to mark the tops of zigzags inside the attractor. Now it's time to deal with stretching and folding, what they look like and how to use them.
You can say that numbering the tops of zigzags correctly is a difficult and tedious process. But Orbit is easy! And for the most part, you don't have to do this numbering, although it's a useful skill. The Master made the template in such a way that stretching and folding can be seen with the naked eye. To do this, the template uses a semaphore with a period of 4. This is a very small period, created specifically to see the phases of the folding.
Look at the picture below. It depicts a complete attractor with the beginning at point X and the end at point Y. This attractor is divided into smaller fractals. All this is actually very complicated, besides... there can be several markings and everyone will say that his marking is correct (as in the Elliott wave theory, whoever is familiar will understand what I mean... How many traders - so many markings )


Now look at the next picture... It shows the folding phases (pullbacks in the language of traders). These are some constructions, usually consisting of 4 adjacent dots of the semaphore. The minimum number of dots is 3, the maximum can be anything... The Master refers to such constructions as "Saddle", although the more common names in traders' slang are range, sideway, pullback.


Note that I have marked these Saddles with rectangles of different colors. What's the matter here?? Yellow rectangles denote saddles, in which all semaphore dots included in their composition have the same rank. Green represents a Saddle where the start and end points have a rank one higher than the other inside dots. And this is very important! Combinations of dots can only be such and no others. For example, 4 adjacent points are marked with a red rectangle, which are not the Saddle. Look - the 3rd dot has a value one higher than the rest - this is an invalid combination.
Now compare the two previous pictures.... Isn't the second one much easier to understand and perceive?? Once again - Orbit is easy!
Next, let's look at the figure below... It shows your possible entries into the position after the end of the folding (saddle) phase in the direction of the development of the higher-order attractor. Isn't it simple? We just see a few dots standing side by side (at least 3) and begin to observe the development of events more closely. We are waiting for the end of the folding phase and enter the position based on the indications of the screenface elements (more about this in the next lessons). Isn't it simple?


Very important point!!! In your observations, never go below M30 TF! There is only noise below and nothing more, besides, the screenface will not be able to accompany you on such fast timeframes. M30 is the base for crypto's, indices, metals, and fast crosses. For slower turtles such as the Majors, H1 can be used. You must choose the TF for your favorite pair yourself, but it can't be lower than M30! Considering that we are talking about such timeframes, you don't need to sit near the screen all day and watch the screenface, it is enough to look once every half an hour to see if several semaphore dots are formed near each other. And only after you notice that the Saddle looms, you begin to observe more closely and build a trading plan.
In the next figure, I want to draw your attention to the fact that it is highly desirable that the end dot of the phase, or the middle dot, lie on the corresponding channel line. It's like a bullet point, saying that the folding phase has been completed successfully. Don't trade such combinations of dots that "hang" inside the channel without touching the lines. This will significantly reduce defects at work. You may miss out a few profitable trades, but this approach will save you from a lot of losing trades. So, the last point that completes the folding phase should be on the channel line.
Also, pay attention to the fact that all the end dots of the folding phase correspond to the 2nd vertices of fractals of different orders (compare with the first picture), which once again confirms that we are opening a position in the right direction, because after the second there must be a third vertex.


The figure below shows an example of my yesterday's sell trade. As you can see, everything is simple.


Hope the information was helpful. To be continued...

regit wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 2:44 am So then the gist of the matter is that due to the limitations imposed by attemtping to map the fractal stretchings and foldings onto the visual output of MT4, the actual 1-2-3 stretch-fold-stretch that is seen in the mathematical calculations (and topological map?) can and at times will be appear distorted as it is viewed via visual aids such as the zigzag indicators.

@ regit
No, nothing at all wrong with the Oscillator model Orbit the Tool or indeed the MT4 environment (in this context). But I think you should consider the definition of a model and keep that definition in mind as you work with the tool since it is the admissible standard worldwide. A model is a plausible explanation of observable phenomenon. Which is what I was saying to you in the initial message. Personally, I admire and respect your enthusiasm and commitment to both learning how Orbit the Tool works and of course validating or improving your very profitable "system" by the tool as you told us to be your aims.

However, to gain both aims (given they are closely related), I feel you would do better if you work with the above definition in mind rather than being out and out literal in your understanding of things. For instance, and recall to remember your direct translation of Logistic Map dynamics into the patterns you see on trading charts. The Logistic Map studies the fecundity of fish and while the agitations in time shown do relate to the chaos we find in markets, it also requires processing the mathematics before applying same to markets in applicable form. In providing the link I assumed you would spend the required time to read the math and therefore the context of how Orbit the Tool (and the market), relates to the Logistic Map. Again recall the desire you had to directly deploy the recurrence relation equation in calculating or projecting the sequence of price quotes. Clearly, and for all sorts of reasons that cannot be applied literally (since everyone would have to go through your computer to trade at all), Orbit ONLY reads and interprets the quotes streamed to trading platforms and can in no sense affect those quotes before they reach a terminal - Orbit the Tool is an overlay obviously and as such all it does is to read a given space. But to do that, an analogue logic of the market worked into the tool deploys to provide the reading and not the literal logic (which fact on its own is amazing, being the first and only model to present as such).

Therefore, and overall, the tool tells you how the market works and how the market is working in real-time by modelling price behaviour it does not and cannot affect price behaviour directly. So to cut a long story short I am saying we cannot be that litral if we wish to understand the tool and how it applies to trading markets but we can take the required time to deeply study and understand the math underpinning the tool. When we do not do so we can get all sorts wrong both about how the tool works, and how the math actually justifies the workings of the tool. For instance, if you read the math you will find that the Strange Attractor is an infinitely dense system of Orbits and so dense in fact that your particular comment on @ImpLaNT's presentation is an irrelevancy. Especially, since it in no sense improves material understanding nor does it affect results or analysis. I would liken it to a comment on the Mandelbrotian calculation of the coast of GB to infinity as missing out 50 grains of sand - so what?

In all of science it is the case that applications do not necessarily meet "laboratory" conditions in use to be valid nor should we expect so where we live on earth and not the moon - not nuclear missiles, airplanes, wonder drugs or whatever. So my advice is find reasonable context as @ImpLaNT did - the difference does not affect the price of fish and knowing the underlying math justifies this, so please lets take the pain in time to understand the math when we are going to be that picky, else we will make less than desired progress in our aims.

I hope you see my points - not wanting to stoke an argument just wishing to promote understanding if I can. Cheers

(-_-)

PS: Thinking about it how clean is the data we get to draw the things the tool draws per broker? Just a thought because I have seen different outcomes from 2 different brokers at the same time.

ImpLaNT wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 12:14 am Practic Lesson 02
Stratching and folding on the charts

Very important point!!! In your observations, never go below M30 TF! There is only noise below and nothing more,

Thanks for your very valuable posts!

As for "noise" on small timeframes:
"There is only noise below [M30/M15/M5--choose whatever you like] and nothing more,..."

I see see this stated over-and-over again on many different forums, and I do not agree with it, especially with the understanding of the fractal nature of the price movement. Let's assume that the idea that the smaller the timeframe viewed, the more noise it contains and the more difficult that it becomes to extract the signal, hence, the more difficult it becomes to make practical trading decisions. If this is indeed true, then it is likely that the 1-minute timeframe is mostly noise and might be useful just to display some generality of direction over a small time scale and nothing more. Then moving to the ultimate small timeframe, the 1-period tick chart, this would be the noisiest of all, and nothing noisier is possible. But the reality is, the 1-period tick chart is the least noisy--it is simply the price quote. The only noise at our personal terminal is the noise that is injected, such as by the broker, as it travels electronically from it's point of origin to its destination on your computer.

In addition, if we are going to accept that the fractal nature of the financial time series is self-similar at any fractal partition that is examined, then if there is no additional information available that indicates which partition level is being examned, it is impossible to identify the level of the partition that is being viewed. So, with every partition looking the same, how could some smaller partition contain some feature, such as noise, that is not identically found on every other partition?

Saying that timeframes below M30 are noisy is tantamount to saying that on M30 and higher, we will have an X-to-Y crown-to-crown magenta zigzag of a single leg that always has an orange zigzag of 1-2-3 legs, but below M30, we cannot know how many orange legs that single magenta leg will have because the data is confounded with noise.

I suspect that this idea of small timeframes being noisy stems from the fact that the patterns that form are happening on a scale that is smaller both in price and time as the timeframe grows smaller. And because there needs to be some minimum amount of distance that price moves during a pattern to make it practical to trade it, a pattern that produces very good results on a 1-hour timeframe is likely to be untradable from a practical standpoint on timeframes below 15 minutes.

(I can assure you, small timeframes can be traded successfully: I have made hundreds of successful trades on M1, M2, and M4 timeframes using exactly the same system as I use on ANY timeframe because as I see them, they all have the same tradable pattern form.)

regit wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 3:48 am Thanks for your very valuable posts!

As for "noise" on small timeframes:
"There is only noise below [M30/M15/M5--choose whatever you like] and nothing more,..."

I see see this stated over-and-over again on many different forums, and I do not agree with it, especially with the understanding of the fractal nature of the price movement.

I agree with @regit completely and in fact that is not just precept but the reality. I assume that @ImpLaNT stated this as a convenience for his approach which is fine but as a general statement, what @regit states is what is correct. I can actually say more about it but do not want to sound too academic on this and will only add that all time frames are the same and depending on the trader - any time frame can be elected as his or her trade frame. There is zero noise in a fractal structure simply because (as @regit states) there is the fact of self-similarity or more correctly for price fractals self-affinity - just a question of different resolutions. Let me also add that in fact the screenface does take you wherever you want - lacunarity or density of points is simply more at lower resolution so there is more pivot movements to watch the lower the resolution otherwise within the nested system of pivots that define the market everything reduces to a single point at or close to infinity.

(-_-)

PS: Clearly, this is one reason why we speak more of partitions and keep the "technical" notion of time frames very much under the radar. It is very difficult in reality to fit this idea of "time frames" into a fractal structure without definite refinements. So while I agree that most traders have learnt and are used to thinking in terms of time frames it does not transfer neatly from that sense to a sense that sees the markets as a movement of price fractures in time. Just my 2 cents

[quote=ImpLaNT post_id=1295509811 time=1681568081 user_id=4934893]
Practic Lesson 02
Stratching and folding on the charts

The figure below shows an example of my yesterday's sell trade. As you can see, everything is simple.




Nice post! About timeframes below 30M I have to say perhaps there is 'noise' at brokers or MT4 but not in price action. Maybe it depends per instrument ( I notice big differences in for example BTCUSD but Forex and DAX/DOW quite ok). A few trading friends trade 1M every day, have to be careful with spread issues but 'noise' not at all. About your BTCUSD 30M entry; you entered at the high (pullback), interested why there perhaps you can explain. If I load BTCUSD 5m I see a nice entry down at the pullback TL break (sorry)

Meyney wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:57 am

But right there before you eyes you can see in 2n (M5) the same arrangement of Semaphore markings as anywhere else - the question of differences among symbols does not arise otherwise we would say given Orbit works with any symbol at all and at any scale. Is it not interesting that all traded assets are the same in dynamical structure and can be traded by a single tool? Which does strongly suggest that in fact there is just a single solution to the market conundrum (any which way you kick it). But of course it will take a very long time for people to "SEE (- -)," given that the alternative view has become the "tradition" having been socialized across traders forever. But to see and understand fractals as the nature of markets does imply a revolution in the traders pocket. At least that is what I know.

(-_-)

regit wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:18 am Below is the link to a shared folder on Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... share_link

This currently holds 3 videos that total about 17 hours of continuous recording of GBPUSD M30.
You can see how a magenta zigzag crown high develps then moves higher, then how price drops into the MRI and subsequently "falls out" of it, moving a crown low (aqua zigzag) further down. You can now follow how all of the Orbit indicators are changing as this transition occurs and compare the entry methods that DarkDoji posted earlier.

The next portion of the continuous series will be uploaded to the folder tomorrow.

It is suggested that you download the videos rather than trying to watch them online. You might get a dialog that incudes "video is still processing". This is related to the system preparing the video for immediate viewing and has no effect on being able to simply download it.

Four more videos have been added to the video collection.
The 7 videos in the folder cover all of Thursday and Friday, April 13 and 14.