BlowFish

Do yourself a favour and take the course. It is absolutely clear from the start that it must be a wedge. If you are unprepared to, ask your trader friend, that is the WW expert. Refer him to page 6 the rules.

I dunno how to put this tactfully. You are wrong. ALL Wolf Waves must be converging full stop, end of story. It is absolutely a fundamental requirement look at page 6. All Wolf Waves converge by definition. It is unequivocal, unambiguous, and mandatory for all WW's. With respect it seems that you have tried to reverse engineer things and have come up with some structures that may well work for you, that is great. They are not WW's. If you look at Wolfs 'sweet spot' you will likely see where you have gone wrong with the chart that you linked.

I would immediately scale back to your old level. If you have problems with discipline at the old level (which you might) cut way back. Exponential growth looks great on paper but taking baby steps is far more likely to be comfortable (and allow you to maintain discipline). This is one of the several hurdles that traders face. This is also how what many would consider 'great' traders blow up. As your account grows think about putting less at risk, sure it flattens that stratospheric equity curve a little but it is a lot safer.

Take a look at the "rules for a Wolf Wave" and I quote "Trend line of 1 to 3 and trend line of 2 to 4 must converge." QED as far as I am concerned so will agree to differ on that

Wolf is absolutely crystal clear that it should be a wedge. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. How do you get an ETA with a megaphone? I dunno you seem to be presenting yourself as an authority on what constitutes a WW (which I have no issue with) however I seem to recall that you have never taken the course? Ask your trader friend (the WW expert) he will confirm that Wolf taught that it must be a wedge. Of course if you choose to trade megaphones that is fine but it is not a WW. If you test megaphones you will probably find they are less reliable as volatility increases but participants on both sides are not 'letting go'. Bulls force prices higher bears force them lower. It is my experience they are far less stable structures of course your mileage may differ What we where talking about before was actually showing trades after 1 2 3 4 had set up, but before point 5 is hit. I am looking forwards to seeing some of those then we can all follow along and include our observations and see how it pans out.

Really that is where the value is seeing stuff unfold 'real time'. I might have imagined it but i think Tresor said he would post some before he went on vacation.

Edit: I should say this is not to chastise Chloe, they seem to have had the brunt of it recently Simply in response to Ranger. It's your time do as you please with it If you will learn something from it great. If you want to help someone that is to 'busy' to help themselves that is fine too. The aforementioned thread has 2 or 3 (or maybe more) solutions to the problem presented. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink. Ok enough of the proverbs already. I would have posted code that plot pivots, mid points, labels, price labels, irregular sessions, split sessions, multiple sessions (e.g. 2.5 days 5 days) weekly pivots, monthly pivots, etc. etc. Unfortunately I am a little busy right now.

Another thought it has to be a wedge or you don't get an ETA which is an integral part of the formation. Incidentally rising wedges show a loss of momentum shortening of thrusts etc. The price action is quite important. It as known as three little Indians, three drives to a top/bottom etc. etc. Of course do whatever works for you but if it aint a wedge it aint a wolf wave.

He seems pretty clear that it should be a wedge. The site has not changed in years and years I guess the megaphone is still there. Maybe it was a mistake? As I say he is quite clear. Megaphones are fairly rare anyway. Why not ask your WW expert friend?

Probablly" how to make money..." though that was written a long time ago and the method has evolved and been refined since then.

Yes it is (well according to Bill Wolf). A WW should be a wedge it is a fundamental element of the pattern. Parallel channels or megaphones may well work but they are not WW's My Wave methodology is the product of about thirty some odd years of studying technical analysis. Early on, I had the good fortune of having John Magee of Edward’s and Magee fame, introduce me to some excellent books and reliable chart patterns. One chart pattern that I found to be particularly reliable was the rising wedge. I found that pattern so intriguing that I literally took it apart to see what made it tick.

You write the code yourself within your application. It's not hard if you know what you are doing.

Chloe I think the reason people are reticent is that you are expecting them to spend time to help but you are "too busy" to try to help yourself. I guess you can see how this might look lazy? If you are too busy to devote any time to this then perhaps you should wait until you have half an hour or so to spare? The thread has the answers you seek. If you have difficulty understanding them then I am sure people will help you. They are unlikely to help if you have not done anything to help yourself. Actually strike that, looks like you have got ranger to waste there time re-inventing the wheel for you.

SYN is a TCP session parameter. If you are not using TCP you will be immune to a SYN Flood (as you are not using TCP you will not reply to SYN requests). By not using TCP you will be immune to attacks that rely on TCP protocols. To route you need IP and that's it. Nowadays of course routers do all sorts of higher level 'stateful' stuff and look deep into packets to do higher level 'clever' things. (Like traffic shaping and prioritisation for example). None of that information is needed to route. Why re-invent the wheel? I am certainly not advocating that, it would not make sense for a lot of people. However if you do not require all the bells and whistles provided by TCP (a generic protocol after all) but do require some simple transport control and session management then it might make sense. Still this goes way beyond the discussion here.

Agree that a good connection makes sense Good does not need to be fast however. Most ISP's have off short outages and re syncing of the line, especially if your noise profile is optimised for speed. You would probably not notice normally. The PC is less important (though I would not run a 386 with Win 95 ). Bandwidth and processing oomph have far outstripped any increase from the CME. Moores Law is not far off....tech stuff grows exponentially.

Quite. The reason that people use TCP is because it is done for them rather than them having to handle session and transport stuff. Hell you can stuff everything into IP packets and handle it all yourself (thats what I'd do but I'd probably write it all in assembly language too ) In truth you don't even need bid and ask information you just need to know if the last trade was @bestbid or @bestask. This can be achieved with a pair of flags.

Dunno if you know FX ticks are different to ticks in other markets. In FX it is actually bid ask changes that are reported as ticks where as other markets it is actual transactions. I looked at some of the popular MT4 'brokers' and things just seemed kinda 'off' to me (and very low tick values). The traders that post here (and elsewhere for that matter) and use tick data for FX seem to favour esignal as apparently it is a more complete feed. Just wanted to make it clear that esig was not my recommendation

TCP offers error correction, flow control and sequence numbering. Of course if your infrastructure is totally saturated the whole time you are stuffed, however if it is just when data is 'fast' things should be recovered in the correct sequence. Of course time stamps will be off if time stamped by the client but for delta type calcs it is sequencing that is important. If Zen uses UDP that could easily explain why some see holes in the data.

I don't think they are you will see they vary quite a lot broker to broker (bookie to bookie). Some only show (or seem to show) ticks from their own customers. It also seems that most retail traders that rely on this info use esignal for FX tick's as it is apparently one of the more complete feeds. Even so, as there are no reporting requirements quite a lot does not get reported!

Do you ever have a problem with 20? If you are doing OK with 20 you should have a good feel of whether you will have problems with 40. I am not clear from your post whether you are trading 20 now. You talk about a jump from 20 to 40 but you also talk about moving to FX? Personally I would not double I would scale up incrementally. I guess it depends in how much of a rush one is in. There is an old adage more haste less speed. If moving to FX I would start with say 5. If scaling up from 20 I would go with 25.

Take a look at the thread mentioned Chloe. I thought it was particularly good as a couple of programming novices came up with solutions. It was a good example of 'teach a man to fish'. I do understand that a lot of traders will not want to expend energy programming and indicators.

One last thing Snyp (I think we have done this to death!) there is a bit of info on matching here Introduction to CME Globex you need to use the pulldown menu and click matching algorithms. To be honest it doesn't go into huge detail and I expect you found it already anyway. I think Globex is 'vanilla' FIFO which has the least information.

I seem to remember that Globex was one of the exchanges that did not support market orders natively in days gone by. My broker (IB) still simulates them. What Globex now provide (according to the reference guide) is market order with protection. I am not sure when they introduced this order type but think it must be fairy recently. Before this order type was available your broker would simulate a market order by placing a limit order well inside the market. Market order with protection is essentially a limit order (with a wide limit). Market with Protection Market orders at CME Group are implemented using a “Market with Protection” approach. Unlike a conventional Market order, where customers are at risk of having their orders flled at extreme prices, Market with Protection orders are flled within a predefned range of prices (the protected range). The protected range is typically the current best bid or ofer, plus or minus 50 percent of the product’s No Bust Range. If the entire order cannot be flled within the protected range, the unflled quantity remains on the book as a Limit order at the limit of the protected range.

Not sure who originated some of these ideas I seem to remember Tewles writing about it in The Futures Game: Who Wins, Who Loses, & Why (1974) Amazon.com: The Futures Game: Who Wins, Who Loses, & Why (9780070647572): Richard Teweles, Frank, Jones: Books though may be mistaken. Don't have the book to hand to see if he credited anyone else. I also seem to rember he talks about RoR and Monte Carlo simulations.

what sevensa said. I think the thread was called plotting globex highs and lows. Several interesting techniques where presented.