Meyney wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 4:53 am Interesting why shorting at this level/time? I have some idea's but perhaps there will come more feedback?

I can tell you why there is a sell here. And I spoke about this to master, but he did not agree with me. Therefore, I will not bring confusion to the thread. The author hopes for matches of semaphores 5n relative to 6n, but I think that this is not an accurate approach and it will inevitably give you, if not losses, then good drawdowns. As you know, in any method, in any system, there are sections of the charts where the approach looks very good. This is shown to you in these trades. This is purely my opinion...

regit wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 9:39 pm

The pilot is great and demonstrates the worth of the tool each time. Lets not degrade his excellent contributions so far. You say it like there is some standard here or elsewhere NOT met. But that is a bit spoilt do you not think? Notes to accompany examples from unpaid contributors who have other things to do and are not incentivised at all by an audience incapable of showing any of their own trading? No feedback on ideas shared and tried? Give us a break - the pilot is not a member, he has applied but is yet to be admitted and I cannot replace him in answering questions such as this. I have personally done all I can to convey as much as is possible about using this tool and as things stand given the sentiment expressed here is general I HEREBY STOP. I am sure there is more than enough to go on at this point so if we want we use what we already got but to avoid such harsh talk for my sincere efforts - I am sorry no mas. Thank you all very much for your time - I am now as ordinary a member as you are so lets go with what we got so far.

The Crow (-_-)

ImpLaNT wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 10:34 pm I can tell you why there is a sell here. And I spoke about this to master, but he did not agree with me. Therefore, I will not bring confusion to the thread. The author hopes for matches of semaphores 5n relative to 6n, but I think that this is not an accurate approach and it will inevitably give you, if not losses, then good drawdowns. As you know, in any method, in any system, there are sections of the charts where the approach looks very good. This is shown to you in these trades. This is purely my opinion...

I see also a sell especially on the 4H chart at the fibo extension (extreme) level (white rectangle). From this chart scrolling down to lower timeframes for the entry, but perhaps this is also not the proper Orbit idea...anyway just sharing

Meyney wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 12:00 am I see also a sell especially on the 4H chart at the fibo extension (extreme) level (white rectangle). From this chart scrolling down to lower timeframes for the entry, but perhaps this is also not the proper Orbit idea...anyway just sharing

Everything is much simpler... It seems to me that no one correlates timeframes with zigzags and so on. Just review these screenshots carefully and you will see exactly what happens every time before the pilot takes position...

P.S. But I am in no way discrediting Orbit. It just seems to me that behind the attempts to explain exactly how to trade using the instrument, the very basic idea of the Orbit has completely faded into the background lately. The tool shows you the price path from point X to point Y and vice versa. This is its main purpose. Your task is to understand where this path begins and where it ends. And this is actually something very close to the grail.

ImpLaNT wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 12:10 am Everything is much simpler... It seems to me that no one correlates timeframes with zigzags and so on. Just review these screenshots carefully and you will see exactly what happens every time before the pilot takes position...

P.S. But I am in no way discrediting Orbit. It just seems to me that behind the attempts to explain exactly how to trade using the instrument, the very basic idea of the Orbit has completely faded into the background lately. The tool shows you the price path from point X to point Y and vice versa. This is its main purpose. Your task is to understand where this path begins and where it ends. And this is actually something very close to the grail.

Just review these screenshots carefully and you will see exactly what happens every time before the pilot takes position...

And this is an example of what I was talking about: The Pilot knows EXACTLY why he took each position. If this is truly intended to be a learning exercise, then it is using an extremely inefficient teaching method with low success rate. ANYONE can post a series of screen captures that include some winning trades and not provide any kind of explanation, but is that REALLY helping anyone? We have no idea what his logic is and what he examined to determine the entries. You are suggesting that everyone simply spend who knows how much time carefully examining everything on the screenface and search for the items or conditions that occur at some point (yet another nebulous condition) prior to making the entry. And there are no guaranteees that whatever each of us might find, if anything, is in agreement one-with-the-other or in agreement with whitedoji's thinking. This is why the images need the commentary by whitedoji himself. I don't think that we should be playing detective, examining every aspect of the screenface looking for clues for actions to take when there are hundreds of clues, many of which are of little importance at a specific moment.

The excuse that the postings are made for free and people are so busy so be grateful for anything they post is simply a well-known cop-out to relieve the poster from any kind of responsibility for being an effective communicator of his views of the material. It would not be a surprise to find that at most, 3 people examined every image that was posted in that ZIP file. And of those 3, MAYBE 1 actually has been able to find practical benefit from it. But if there had been some written commentary with it, certainly more people would be willing to examine the full content provided and certainly more than 1 would have something of practical value gleaned from it.

And this would likely lead to beneficial, constructive discussions toward practical ways to trade using the tool.

LOVELY DISCUSSION ONGOING - AND FOR THE FIRST TIME. WHY? BECAUSE I AM NOT A PART OF IT "TEACHING" ANYONE ANYTHING EVRYONE IS SAYING IT LIKE HE FEELS AND KNOWS IT.

So this is exactly what I meant here viewtopic.php?p=1295511482#p1295511482 and I am right so to clarify please see it my way below:

Look Orbit the Tool is a tool and I have said very clearly IT IS NOT A "TRADING SYSTEM". I have said there are no rules why? It is an exact model of the market and you can follow it without fear. When it says the market is up the market is up and when it says the market is down the market is down. Has it ever been wrong on that score? I then showed everyone how the Screenface works to enable you time moves - I gave a sequence , an order of its signals from the earliest to the latest. Finally, I showed how I trade it and brought on a trader just like anyone here, outside of me who trades it that way pretty successfully - and about that there can be no doubt. Is the pilot good with tool or not?

Why did I show all of that with a myriad of notes drawings, etc? So that you are free to use your discretion to develop your own "trading system"- the way you know how, or like or the way you find works for you. I made clear neither I nor the pilot invite you to trade the way we do. Some of you started out developing your "systems" which is fine - keep it up. Now some of you are now saying you do not like the way the pilot and I trade. Fantastic - you are good enough to know what you do not like in our styles so if you can use part of it fine - correct the parts you do not like and reform it to your taste.

I have provided all I can provide as above and there is nothing I feel incentivised to add. I will also NOT reform my pattern of trading until I see that your reformation of my pattern of trading makes sense to me and I like it from you explaining what and how you reformed it - is that fair? Now given I NEVER change my word and can only say sorry where I am wrong, I have said no mas - no more. There is now enough for us each to his liking to do with the tool exactly as we want or discover we can do. And those who find the tool not to their taste are invited to leave it be - forget it. It is NOT for you. Those who find angles they can use and profit (and the tool does not invite the lazy or those lacking in imagination), do what you want and as members we can talk about whatever you come up with and exchange ideas. But no mas - I have done my best and the options for each and everyone are as above. I hope I am understood as still being a most supportive member of the forum. We all found this tool one way or another so according to our inclinations lets do with it as we please and talk about our exploits here - show results - say what works for us and how - learn from each other and grow our accounts if we can by the tool. I think this is the most logical way we can grow because you want a "trading system" and someone to show you how to trade it. I have no "trading system" but I have shown what I have completely and to the fullest extent possible - A chaotic model of the market free of charge and therefore of obligations other than to tell the whole truth about what I know of its workings to you. Ladies and gentlemen I rest my case. And thank you all for your friendship even as I remain a friend to all - let us trade how we wish - for Orbit the Tool to be useful at all, it needs to be understood for what it is - An Oscillator Model of the Markets.

The Crow (-_-)

Meyney wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 12:00 am I see also a sell especially on the 4H chart at the fibo extension (extreme) level (white rectangle). From this chart scrolling down to lower timeframes for the entry, but perhaps this is also not the proper Orbit idea...anyway just sharing

Where the white rectangle was placed, I suspect that when the rectangle was placed there, there was the 5M top drawn that has migrated further up. Why did it move further up? I would have wanted to sell that 5M top and hold it until at least a 3A down was drawn, with stop loss above the 5M top. But clearly, that would have been a losing trade. What would have stopped me from making such a sell?

I see that after that white rectangle (point 0) there was a low black arrow 2Y (point 1), then subsequently a lower high black arrow 2Y (point 2), playing out as I would expect as price makes it way to the 3A lower strange attactor. Then a higher low black arrow (point 3) that cannot be the terminus for a 1-2-3 down but just movement on a smaller fractal inside of this larger fractal. But price could have stayed below that lower high and had a series of green/red dots that terminated in a much lower low that would produce a point 3 low black arrow 2Y below the point 1, and enable the 3A low point to be drawn.

If Orbit is never wrong, then clearly, there has to be something that would tell me that making a sell at that white rectangle when it was a 5M high is wrong. So, what is that "something"?? Or even later, I think that I would have sold that point 2 black arrow 2Y lower high, again expecting to see a subsequent point 3 lower low 2Y that also is a 3A. And that also would be a wrong decision. So what would have told me it was wrong??

ImpLaNT wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 10:34 pm I can tell you why there is a sell here. And I spoke about this to master, but he did not agree with me. Therefore, I will not bring confusion to the thread. The author hopes for matches of semaphores 5n relative to 6n, but I think that this is not an accurate approach and it will inevitably give you, if not losses, then good drawdowns. As you know, in any method, in any system, there are sections of the charts where the approach looks very good. This is shown to you in these trades. This is purely my opinion...

"The author hopes for matches of semaphores 5n relative to 6n" - Not sure what the statement is meant to convey but from my understanding of the tool the word "hopes" does not arise unless you do not understand the concept of point matching which may well be the case here since in fact the Semaphore we see from the trade window in the snap (which I think is 4n or M30), is by colour a 4 (G) so in fact there is indeed a firm 5n/6n match of 3:2 very simple and not at all a complexity once you understand the matching concept. Hope does not arise because if there is not a match do not trade which is what we learnt here if I am not wrong, so the trader would have been in fact cued by a match. Well from what we have learnt here that is my understanding and I am sure the trader knows that as well so I would conclude a firm match-just from the Semaphore head we see on screen.

The Crow (-_-)

PS: @ImpLaNT just to be clear - a match is NOT something that happens after you enter a trade. A match is the cue it happens before you take the trade - a) you have a match b) you validate the match c) you take the trade. The Pilot is cued by matches so once there is a match as in all the snaps I showed he trades. Matches ensure you get timing and direction right so they cannot be something you "you hope" - NO it is something you see --- IT IS THE TRIGGER FOR THE TRADE.

regit wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 3:37 am

Without prejudice I have been in this thread from the start but I cannot make sense of what you are saying or how you describe the space we trade. Either I do not know anything about what we have learned about Orbit the Tool here or you do not. But we do not trade anything called 1,2,3, etc so a lot is in your imagination. Proving Orbit the Tool is always wrong is not a complexity - you have a camera setup 24/7 to show where, how and when. Do not keep that to yourself show us boss where you get your ideas from. Share it so we can see your point. That is if you do not mind.

The Crow (-_-)

Darkdoji wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 11:43 pm The pilot is great and demonstrates the worth of the tool each time. Lets not degrade his excellent contributions so far. You say it like there is some standard here or elsewhere NOT met. But that is a bit spoilt do you not think? Notes to accompany examples from unpaid contributors who have other things to do and are not incentivised at all by an audience incapable of showing any of their own trading? No feedback on ideas shared and tried? Give us a break - the pilot is not a member, he has applied but is yet to be admitted and I cannot replace him in answering questions such as this. I have personally done all I can to convey as much as is possible about using this tool and as things stand given the sentiment expressed here is general I HEREBY STOP. I am sure there is more than enough to go on at this point so if we want we use what we already got but to avoid such harsh talk for my sincere efforts - I am sorry no mas. Thank you all very much for your time - I am now as ordinary a member as you are so lets go with what we got so far.

The Crow (-_-)

You say it like there is some standard here or elsewhere NOT met. But that is a bit spoilt do you not think?

Indeed, I do think that there is an unwritten standard here that is not being met: The standard in communication (and teaching) that says make your best effort to convey to your audience the point that you are trying to help them grasp/understand. I am confident that everyone reading this can agree that submitting a set of screen captures with no commentary attached does nothing at all for conveying to the viewers what the author wants the viewers to understand.

In addition, there is a huge difference between requesting a trading system to be delivered and simply asking that someone explain his thinking as to why he performed the action that he took. As we have already seen posted, someone shared a screen capture and said he would sell at a particluar point and provided some REASONS why he came to that action. That gave information for all of us to consider and then decide if we agree, disagree, or don't understand what was said. But whichever of these results we reach, they can be shared in a further discussion. But when there are simply screen captures with no revelation of the thinking behind the actions taken, how can there be any kind of useful discussion? That is simply not an effective method of conveying ones ideas to others.

I was in a physics class where the instructor gave quizzes with 10 questions. Each question was worth 10 points. Of the 10 points, 1 point was for a correct answer, 9 points for the explanation and/or equations that lead to the answer. And part of his reasoning for giving such little weight to the answer itself was that anyone can make a silly math mistake, like 3X10 = 300, that results in a wrong answer, yet everything else in the calculations was correct. So strange as it may seem, it was possible to have 100% correct answers yet fail the quiz with a score of only 10 out of 100 points. Summary: Showing results is not nearly as valuable as is providng the explanation.