Plus how is that a m5 on 1m if the flow orb isnt purple or dark orange?
Oh i see the orbs are not based on timeframes
A y2 is a m5 on the 1m
this picture explains everything to me

Orbit is really wonderful and simple
You just have to define the meanings correct and your good to go

Chickenspicy wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 9:33 am The time flag or the open position?

That is just a time marker at the vertical line that is marking the magenta(5) low pivot. The entry bar is the dotted green vertical to the far right.

Important to understand Orbit the Tool NOT as a "trading system" but as the trading model of the market based on founded mathematical ideas in the science of complex dynamical systems.
This means in part that you cannot simply transfer ideas from "technical" analysis since in fact the term "technical" is clearly a misnomer in the naming of that approach as there is nothing there that is in fact a mathematical application ------> including the general understanding of Fibonacci ratios.
In trading by chaos and fractal geometry, tools like the MRI etc do not work on the basis of apophenic heuristics that define "technical" analysis so it is important to ignore "technical" analysis in interpreting the tool proper and the tools contained within the tool. You are best off understanding the principles by which they work in Chaos and applying them as such. For instance the MRI tool as a "technical" tool is related to by traders as a Support and Resistance application. In the trading apparatus called Orbit the Tool it is there to help a trader refine his/her sense of the shape of the market and of the Strange Attractor at various points in time. This is because in the underpinning mathematics that drives the tool, Support and Resistance is absolute nonsense and tenebrific in terms of market dynamics. You cannot therefore expect to lodge such a non idea in chaos and expect the benefits that chaos allows trading. The decision is the trader's and if a trader finds the intellectual understanding of the concepts we use in the tool too "advanced" for his/her mind. It is better to stick then with the simplistic non founded views of "technical" analysis ---> but not to mix them with trading chaos and especially trading chaos by Orbit the Tool which is an apparatus for trading chaos in markets.

(-_-)

Chickenspicy wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 7:19 am is there anyway you could ask the moderators to include a link on the first page to the latest version of orbit and the readable files? this would be very helpful, thanks


page 94 - until now links

Will try but not sure that is policy so they may decline.

(-_-)

regit wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 2:13 am I entered this buy trade on GBPUSD using the Scalping system.

Price is in a very narrow range, so space is not stretching much on M1. You can see how the H4 white i-HighLow is squeezed.
Because H4 has a recent A(3) pivot, I have an up bias.

1. At the white vertical, M1 has an M(5) low pivot matched to H1 Y(2) low pivot: I look for a buy setup.
2. Trigger with 5 objects in agreement:
KSO n = positioned in the R row.
Range Low= green up arow.
Spot Trades Orbot Spot = Buy up arrow in a green spot.
Cyclicality n = green.
Trade Risk = red (Risky to sell).

Buy entry at the green dotted vertical on M1.

I have an expectation that the M1 will paint an M(5) high that is a point match with an H1 Y(2). This would result in the H1 Y(2) making a cycle of 1-2-3 up-down-up, which has the POSSIBILITY of drawing an A(3) matching point as well. So at some point, price needs to go above the latest H1 Y(2) high, which makes that a possible take profit if the KSO partition n has not yet reached the + row.

Because H1 has G(4) low pivot matched with an H4 low A(3) pivot, I expect price to stay above this low during all of the cycling that will occur as the price goes up to a G(4) high pivot on H1. So that low is my inital stop loss.

Note that before my entry, there is on M1 a G(4) high pivot calling for a G(4) low pivot. I think it is likely that price will be below my entry (trade in floating drawdown) when the G(4) is drawn, so I will look for another buy entry then.

UPDATE
The buy position was stopped out.

CONCLUSION
More factors must be evaluated than just step 1 and step 2 to decide on entering a position.

[1] Top right first slide you can see how well in the money we are.

[2] On the same slide you can see the point to point moves earlier.

[3] I traded each for a 3/3. Could have entered the 2(Y) at the right hand edge Tokyo. But was tired and never want to tempt a good thing so let it ride.
[4] This morning woke late so read market late but read correctly we still had at worst a little more to do going down (besides there was a lot of unbalance between pivots across the various partitions (unbalance = pivots nested at the wrong weights which is a give away notified by the Cloud Version but not the prototype), so entered to at worst a H4 Y(2).
[5] but before we had that point to point translation Screenface showed we may be going further in space (Global Inverse On - 6n Fractal Patterns came on)
[6] So I scaled in to increase my potential profit in direction. I set stop to Breakeven and increased range by 3000 points. So the only thing I can lose now (which is a real loss and painful but unavoidable), is the time value of capital employed but not the capital itself as actually if we make my speculative target it will be a killing. This is how I have benefited from point to point trading (deterministic trading), and using the trading apparatus Orbit the Tool. And feel good because risk is well managed and potential for profits remains high even in the situation (not nice), of entering at well less than Initial Value (Semaphore), for this run which is the safest practice. Which means in Orbit WAIT FOR A PIVOT YOUR EYES CAN SEE TO ENTER TRADE (i.e. to begin trade planing). If there is none immediately then another time ---> the market is not running away. The idea from "technical" trading of setting daily targets forcing traders to take risky trades in order to meet up is not very sophisticated and stems from fear and the difficulty of winning "technical" trades. When you trade chaos we show you that you trade non risky space between 2 points and opportunities of that are many so you can be patient. Since most trades are sure, time losses (they are real economic losses however), on the time value of money are highly conservative and minimised compared with trading by "technical" analysis which has an objectionable level of the prevalence of and tolerance for extremely high loss rates in their so-called "systems" (though that now can be corrected by trading System + OTT).

(_-_) Inverted

BTW: We are torturing (finding the deformation rate of), @Chikenspicy's indictor until it confesses its secrets and that way allow us to see a fit in chaotic space. Good so far but incredible lag means we still need to torture it some more to gain the fit in timing we need.

regit wrote: Tue Aug 01, 2023 10:33 pm UPDATE
The buy position was stopped out.

CONCLUSION
More factors must be evaluated than just step 1 and step 2 to decide on entering a position.

In my considered view your conclusion is highly incompetent - very indeed so a) Consider my post above - the same situation and you lost I have won 4/4 b) You set out to disprove something you have no mastery of at all - you were given this new idea less than a day so not sure you have observed enough of the nuances involved (very unprofessional --> Know well by testing before you commit). c) You were trading based on some "system" as yet to be blended with OTT by you - a "system" that is unmatched for timing with Orbit must be worked by the owner to find the fit before conjoint application given the high probability of the influence of normal curve type tools in the mix of tools employed by most "so-called" systems d) So rather than reach the very wrong conclusion you have made based on the above and more my sincere advice and to give you any credibility at all - spend a month trying to blend your tool, and carefully record at least a month of your trials and come again to let us know. It is a terrible thing to mislead others in trading. It costs them money.
Cheers,

(-_-)


The principle of more is better in "technical" studies remains fallacious given Mandelbrot's findings on distributions and the implied consequence of using the same stuff to correct to more or less the same thing. BTW: Trading point to point means the trader needs to stay alert for negations or truncations where a significant counter point is hit. The tool can never be wrong as a result and the trader can never fail by definition because if alert will see the negation or at least suspect direction. You need to use your head aligned to movement is our advise in the books NOT as your time in "technical" systems development may have led you to think it best to rely on indicators - they are slaves the only now read of any market is by Semaphores and such. That is a general advice for next time and before you rush to say things you are not really grounded in.

I think you went off on a tangent, and actually AGREED with my conclusion. Here again is the conclusion.
CONCLUSION
More factors must be evaluated than just step 1 and step 2 to decide on entering a position.
See? I said that MORE factors than JUST step 1 and step 2 are needed. And you clearly stated that there are NUANCES involved as well as needing to stay alert for truncations, which is agreeing that MORE is needed. You went off on another topic entirely with most of the rest of your reply.

regit wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2023 1:18 am I think you went off on a tangent, and actually AGREED with my conclusion. Here again is the conclusion.
CONCLUSION
More factors must be evaluated than just step 1 and step 2 to decide on entering a position.
See? I said that MORE factors than JUST step 1 and step 2 are needed. And you clearly stated that there are NUANCES involved as well as needing to stay alert for truncations, which is agreeing that MORE is needed. You went off on another topic entirely with most of the rest of your reply.

I will not argue with you I have said what I have said -------------> you are wrong and that closes the chapter for me (rather than going down a road of pettiness that leads no one anywhere). I cannot think of a pedigree trader that does what you did, very unprofessional and again it is a very terrible thing in my book misleading traders. If you exclude you mind from your trading then you are not trading. Your mind requires balanced information to make balanced judgements. You are more grown up than to be as childish as a game of "but you said"....taken in context everything I have said, I am correct but giving all of that context here whatever I have said over some nonsense is not my understanding of a mature conversation. Nothing more need be added go test the tool in a transparent scheme and come see us again. Right now we are not buying. Got it? Lets be serious on the thread if the aim is to support one another. But if you are seeking a "Gold medal" for your "System" find your Olympics elsewhere. Let us trade folks!

(-_-)

Darkdoji wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2023 1:29 am I will not argue with you I have said what I have said -------------> you are wrong and that closes the chapter for me (rather than going down a road of pettiness that leads no one anywhere). I cannot think of a pedigree trader that does what you did, very unprofessional and again it is very terrible thing in my book misleading traders. If you exclude you mind from your trading then you are not trading. Your mind requires balanced information to make balanced judgements. You are more grown up than to be as childish as a game "but you said"....taken in context I am correct but giving all of that context here whatever I have said over some nonsense is not my understanding of a mature conversation. Nothing more need be added go test the tool in a transparent scheme and come see us again. Right now we are not buying. Got it? Lets be serious on the thread if the aim is to support one another. But if you are seeking a "Gold medal" for your "System" find your Olympics elsewhere. Let us trade folks!

(-_-)

And here is what is very confusing. Right after I posted the entry, you posted, " It is a good trade with good expectations and hope you manage it well - do not jump out due some irrational fear of reversal, . . ." It seems odd that if you had concerns, as you later listed, that you made no critical remarks about anything that I wrote.

But after price failed to continue any significant amount higher but turned into a loss, you scrambled to find a variety of "reasons" why it was not a good trade and that I must have some sinister ulterior motive for even posting.

As far as your other assumptions, they hold no weight (nor truth), because I listed ALL of the criteria that I considered to decide on an entry. And you can see for yourself that it was a quite sparse list. In addition, I gave some commentary on what I was expecting to develop via semaphores with no mention of any other system or indicators: Everything that I mentioned is part of Orbit. IF I would have been using something from another system as part of the entry criteria, I would have included it in the list.

On a related note, I can assure you from my experience in dealing with other traders, especially newcomers, they WILL read the Scalping manual and, as I did, simply apply the listed criteria with no consideration of anything else. They tend to naively think that a document like that is like a cookbook, and only blindly following what is written without any thinking will produce the perfect cake first time, every time.