Wolfe

[BlowFish 10]

BlowFish, you never define point 1 before point 4 is hit. I enclose a screenshot of GBPJPY with almost perfect Wolfe with imaginary point 1. The reason I did not take this trade is because I did not like the volume histogram that I observed from imaginary point 1 to point 4 and later. Had he volume been correct I would have traded this one.

 

]

 

I have to say I would have probably anchored it there too.

 

Indeed the time to draw is after point 4 and before point 5. In fact the way I understand it once you have 234 you place 1 and then wait for your trade. Of course if price is at 5 and showing exhaustion (through vol climax or whatever) then you could draw a quicky around entry time but having the lines in place after 4 is formed seems more relaxed.

 

Anyway enjoy your new board!!!

[Guest Tresor]

I have to say I would have probably anchored it there too.

 

Indeed the time to draw is after point 4 and before point 5. In fact the way I understand it once you have 234 you place 1 and then wait for your trade.

 

This is correct understanding of what I do

[DugDug 10]

i only have a rudimentary idea of this, but thought this was interesting....

I have no idea where to place point one yet (??) , and not sure if 4 has completed (???) but the AUD/USD daily chart looks interesting?

[BlowFish 10]

i only have a rudimentary idea of this, but thought this was interesting....

I have no idea where to place point one yet (??) , and not sure if 4 has completed (???) but the AUD/USD daily chart looks interesting?

 

Strictly speaking the channels should converge i.e. it should be a wedge type construct. In fact historically Wolfes discoveries came from his exhaustive study of the "rising wedge" after meeting John Magee (Edwards& Magee).

[Guest Tresor]

I have to say I would have probably anchored it there too.

 

Then you would have exited now with a few thousand bucks of profit. The price hit EPA / almost hit EPA. You never know with MetaTrader. Their charting is seriously screwd up.

[waveslider 10]

I'd like to do a little experiment with you WW'ers or those following this thread - -

 

Let's all look at the S&P via SPY and submit charts on where (if any) a wolfe wave exists. Start with most recent history.

 

Use the daily chart so we're all on the same page, and please try to explain WHY you chose the points you did.

 

We can all learn from this, and see how it turns out!

[Guest Tresor]

Strictly speaking the channels should converge i.e. it should be a wedge type construct. In fact historically Wolfes discoveries came from his exhaustive study of the "rising wedge" after meeting John Magee (Edwards& Magee).

 

Guys, how many times did you trade a wedging pattern that failed? Is Wolfe really about wedging pattern (only)?

 

Wolfes can also be non-wedging. And trading a non-wedging Wolfe is even a bigger fun because only a few people trade such pattern An example from 20 minutes ago attached.

 

What Wolfe is about? it is about identifying the market inbalance in point 5 and trading in the direction of the expected balance (EPA).

 

It really doesn't matter if point 5 is in a wedging or non-wedging pattern.

[BlowFish 10]

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.

[Guest Tresor]

One chart pattern that I found to be particularly reliable was the rising wedge..[/i]

 

This doesn't mean that rising wedge is the only one he found, does it?

 

I remember having seen a number of non-wedging patterns in Mr Wolfe's website a year ago.

[BlowFish 10]

This doesn't mean that rising wedge is the only one he found, does it?

 

I remember having seen a number of non-wedging patterns in Mr Wolfe's website a year ago.

 

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?

[BlowFish 10]

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.

[waveslider 10]

Tresor -

 

The prob. I see is that if you draw 2 straight lines then you have a "pattern". You could do this all day and your mind would trick you into seeing patterns all day.

 

There needs to be more solid criteria here if you are going to trade in a systematic way (as opposed to intuition).

 

It sounds like you trade with a bit more intuition, and since you have traded "your" pattern (I think we settled it that it's not wolfe's pattern, not that it matters anyway) for so long, you know the in's and out's of it.

 

How about drawing up a PDF with some more "strict" and definable rules, then saying what you like to see in a pattern. Maybe you could start a new thread.

 

Otherwise I don't see what this thread is doing anymore. It was begun so that people could post patterns "in progress" and has degraded.

[BlowFish 10]

 

Otherwise I don't see what this thread is doing anymore. It was begun so that people could post patterns "in progress" and has degraded.

 

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.

[Guest Tresor]

Otherwise I don't see what this thread is doing anymore. It was begun so that people could post patterns "in progress" and has degraded.

 

I hoped my posts and screenshots of real trades would addvalue the thread. Before I started posting there were maybe 2 - 3 (out of hundreds screenshots) properly identified Wolfes.

 

Since my help is not welcome, I am out of this thread.

[BlowFish 10]

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.

[BlowFish 10]

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

[Guest Tresor]

"Trend line of 1 to 3 and trend line of 2 to 4 must converge."

 

For sure they must converge in a converging Wolfe.

[BlowFish 10]

For sure they must converge in a converging Wolfe.

 

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.

[BlowFish 10]

And he purposely placed a non-wedging megaphone Wolfe picture on his website... to deceive potential clients.

 

Now do yourself a favour and find anything on his website that says Wolfe must be a wedging pattern.

 

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.

[Guest Tresor]

All Wolf Waves converge by definition. It is unequivocal, unambiguous, and mandatory for all WW's.

 

Then why don't you e-mail Mr Wolfe and request that at least 2 of his pictures be removed from his website, because they do not depict the Wolfe the way you understand it.

[BlowFish 10]

Then why don't you e-mail Mr Wolfe and request that at least 2 of his pictures be removed from his website, because they do not depict the Wolfe the way you understand it.

 

Because it doesn't bother me in the slightest, though my 'understanding' does not come from trying to piece together the methodology from the web site. Wolf puts it quite well Perhaps because I have sample waves on my website, many think that they are now "expert"in Wolfe Wave and decide to give trades and or ridiculous drawings. Believe me--they are wrong!

 

You are wrong plain and simple Ask your friend, email Wolf or feel free to continue to disbelieve me (and WaveSlider) though I am not sure what you think we have to gain by lying. It is plainly stated over and over that they must converge. Perhaps he has purposely left a red herring or two on the website, or perhaps (more likely) you have missed the significance of the sweet zone and so have got point 1 wrong. I dunno. As I said before I guess we must agree to disagree though I am rather confused by why you should be so adamant.

[Guest Tresor]

Because it doesn't bother me in the slightest, though my 'understanding' does not come from trying to piece together the methodology from the web site.

 

Just curious, where does your ''understanding'' comes from then?

 

continue to disbelieve me (and WaveSlider) though I am not sure what you think we have to gain by lying.

 

Trading is not about believing but about knowledge. And the knowledge you have been passing onto newbies is simply incorrect and may lead them to financial disaster.

 

Perhaps he has purposely left a red herring or two on the website

 

can't believe my eyes :rofl:

 

or perhaps (more likely) you have missed the significance of the sweet zone and so have got point 1 wrong.

 

Point 1 is precisely established with the extention of the following line: EPA point - point 4. I would be interested to know your alternative version of this line and your alternative version of point 1. Please post your interpretation of this chart

[BlowFish 10]

Just curious, where does your ''understanding'' comes from then?

 

 

I thought that was obvious, the course. Did you not read my posts where I quoted pieces? Hence the QED a few posts back. It is clear from the course and the follow up faxes that the lines must converge. It is you that re misleading people with your half baked ideas trying to reverse engineer the subject from the web site. Ask your trading friend, the Wolf expert if you don't believe me. Presumably you believe him. I m done with this smashing me head against a wall of foolishness here. I do wish you all the best with WW it would appear your 'variation' is effective which is all that matters

Edited February 19, 2010 by BlowFish

[thalestrader 14]

Then you wouldn't mind enlighetning me with your interpretation of the ''megaphone'' Wolfe that I copied from Mr Wolfe's website and posted here, would you?

 

 

Would you please describe wherein this chart you see a "megaphone"? I do not see it myself, and I'd appreciate your help. My sense of this chart has always been that we are not being shown the whole story, i.e. relevant points are hidden in history beyond the left edge, in that instance. I thank you. I am not saying you are wrong, only that I myself do not se what you are seeing.

 

 

For what it's worth, though I never took the course as Blowfish has, I did have a very long conversation with Mr. Wolfe about six years ago, and I certainly came away with the understanding that, as Blowfish has stated, Wolfe Waves must wedge, i.e. the trendline described by points 1 & 3 and the trendline described by points 2 & 4 must converge. I believe that Blowfish quoted directly from Wolfe's manual in making this point.

 

I am no expert in Wolfe waves, and I do not pretend to know their traits nor to possess the ability to recognize them as Wolfe himself would define them.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

[BlowFish 10]

BlowFish,

 

Come on Man. Draw your 1-3-5 and 2-4 and 1-4 lines. Please do this for us

 

I am not sure what that proves to be honest? I have never claimed to be an expert at WW's or even to trade them or even to be interested in trading them. Having said that I am interested in market geometry and price patterns and have a decent library of courses and books on that subject. I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of the topic and have traded simple channels in the past.

 

Wolfes stuff does not particularly resonate with me, though there is some synergy with other things I am comfortable with. All I have done is point out that the rules are crystal clear and unambiguous I'll quote again from page 6 "Trend line of 1 to 3 and trend line of 2 to 4 must converge.".. My intention was simply to try to help clarify things, certainly not to intimate I was some sort of expert. I was kind of flabbergasted how adamant you where that this was wrong based on a couple of un-annotated charts.Again I am not saying that megaphones are not effective just that by definition they are not WW's.

 

I have annotated the chart you posted with 3 different waves. I would certainly not have drawn them in real time. Hell I would never have drawn them if I wasn't looking for them to see whether they could be drawn! For that reason I am not really sure if there is any value in posting them. I also fudged them a bit, the entries where OK but a couple came up short on the targets. That effected my placement of point 1 (knowing whether price would hit target) that's the trouble with hindsight. I guess I should have done it 'honest'. I would not want to lead people astray as I said up top I am certainly no expert on Wolf.

 

The main issue I have is that there are a couple of different ways of drawing point 1. Point 1 is the key point as 1-3-5 determines entry and 1-4-T determines target. Put another way change how you draw point 1 and everything changes. I think the thing to do probably is choose the most conservative point 1.