Online trading on Wave Theory (NIROBA method) - page 257
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I think that yes, I have simplified Glenn Neely's method and adapted it to practical trading.
By describing the price patterns individually, I realised that any movement can be arranged in three waves.
The current UR/USD is 1.4841, I'm waiting for correction to 1.4450, I'm short
from 1.4840 with a take profit at 1.4450.
Quote from Nirbka's post from Onyx. http://www. onix-trade.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=85625&pid=381988&mode=threaded&start=#entry381988
Niroba and you turn out to be a real fraud and swindler. Here on the forum on November 2, you wrote that you were in the euro sell from 1.4695 and now, on November 5, on Onyx you write that you are in the sell from 1.4841. Although you set take profit at 1.4450, the price was not even close there. You're blatantly lying. You're simply a crook.
Please remove this verbal diarrhea. It's unpleasant. And attracts dung flies to the branch.
Speaking of flies. I asked Niroba a question, he answered, all seems to make sense.
Which brings me to another question for everyone else who came after me
and started getting clever - "What are you doing here again ?????" The question wasn't
asked to you, but everyone's been getting smart-assed. And we're talking about shit,
we're the ones, pardon the expression, making it here. So a man trades
on the demo or the real, and you don't care, so his predictions don't add up
So what? Does he make you trade by them? NO! Everyone trades on his own,
So why pick on the man, let him draw his own pictures. I was interested, so I
I asked, I will ask your opinion, I will ask in another thread.
P.S. If someone is offended, I'm not to blame, think for your own actions.
Speaking of flies. I asked Niroba a question, he answered, all seems to make sense.
Personal questions in private.
You should go to the zoo and ask the first monkey that can draw.
"What are you doing here again????"
8-0
>> who's here?
Please remove this verbal diarrhea.
>> what are you doing?! >> it's art.
>> like feng shui.
Personal questions in private.
You might as well go to the zoo and ask the first monkey that can draw.
This thread wasn't created by you, so it's not up to you to ask me questions.
>> And I can be a...fuck up...
neuroba and her family on holiday in Bali
I really didn't want to get involved here, but I still think it would be a good idea to bring some clarity to a subject which is, to put it mildly, not very cautiously named. I myself have spent some time on the Wave Principle and even translated a couple of books, so I can consider my opinion not too amateurish.
There are a few... ... mistakes, absolutely incompatible with the status of a waveguide, which he attributes to himself. Unfortunately, it seems that people who have made the Wave Principle (hereinafter EWP, Elliott Wave Principle) their life do not participate in this discussion, so its level (if you filter out the messages with outright flooding) cannot be called high. I will only note a few points.
1. the so-called predictions of EWP are never unambiguous and unquestioning. A person making such "predictions" with aplomb goes against the very spirit of EWP. In EWP, there are only scenarios according to which a trader acts at any given moment. Any professional wave trader, unless he is a superficial impostor, always clearly understands that any of the current scenarios can be cancelled and has several different scenarios in mind. He clearly knows that cancelling a scenario won't be his professional disaster - it's just a work in progress. The wave specialist works systematically from the initial point of analysis and experiences a number of disasters of his scenarios, trying to squeeze a reasonable profit out of the price during this time.
Any elementary trading operation of the wave specialist is always a harmonious part of the multi-routine that specifies his actions under a certain price movement scenario. This multi-way is not a simple linear unvariant sequence of entries/exits, but a multivariate tree of actions, the branches of which are selected depending on where the price moved. A part of this multi-way is always a complex management of position sizes (for example, partial closes and pyramiding - but never averaging, much less martingale!)
It is in the sense of multi-runs that pro-wavers usually interpret the results of their operations. In other words, a professional does not consider trades to be isolated from one another. They are always a series of trades, subordinated to a single plan, which depends on a particular scenario of price movement. The result of the series is what he says: "I made a profit" or "I made a loss".
There is nothing similar to scenarios in Alexey's statements.
2 Any entry into the position is always subject to the mandatory setting of both potential exit points, i.e. stop loss and take profit. A professional wolf-worm trader never trades not only without a stop loss, but even without a take profit (if the first one is obvious without any explanation, then the second one is not that well known). Forecasts in the spirit of Alexei Niroba, where only the target (take-profit) is voiced, without specifying a stop-loss and key points refuting/confirming the scenario, are completely inconsistent with the spirit of EWP itself. Incidentally, there is such a wavemaker who has worked on Neely - Bezrodny. Although I have never gravitated towards Neely's version of EWP, I find Bezrodny's predictions to be very calibrated and tactically flawless.
3. In spite of the fact that EWP nominally declares that "all fractals are good", neverthelessprofessionals do not trade on small TF. The smallest working TF of the wave expert is usually H4, well H1 at least. On shallow TFs, according to gurus of EWP, significant wave patterns are not detected. The criterion for the pattern significance - is the correspondence of the pattern to its place among other patterns of different time specification.
4. There is no fixed knowledge, which completes the "sum of knowledge" of the wave-expert. The currency pairs market constantly surprises: there are patterns that are not explicitly described by the classics. (One of them, I remember, in 2005, was the appearance of a zigzag with wave B exceeding wave A; it is not absolutely ZZ, but it is the most logical variant from the point of view of its environment; and its mark-up was just 5-3-5, instead of 3-3-5). Recognition of such patterns is usually a consequence of the fact that no other logical way to mark up a chart was possible.
The emergence of new patterns is not usually considered among professionals as something to disprove EWP. They clearly know that EWP is dynamic and allows the inclusion of new patterns. The analysis itself becomes more complicated, of course.
5. Predicting the timeframe for achieving goals in EWP is not a primary concern. Even the gurus admit that this task is extremely difficult. To solve it, other tools, traditionally not related to EWP, are involved - cycle analysis, for example. Therefore I already considered Alexey's scandalous "prediction" about the timing of movement of the oira from 1.4 to 1.5 "within a couple of weeks" as extremely frivolous from the very beginning. However, Alexey himself said later about the difficulties of timing forecasts.
The common view of professionals on this subject is as follows: the key levels between which the price moves, at some prediction horizon, are "set from above", and some or other fundamental events can significantly delay or bring closer the terms for reaching these levels.
6. It is more reasonable to use a logarithmic rather than a linear scale for long term forecasts. Especially if the anticipated movement is tens of percent of the current price level. Otherwise, a large error will occur. Alexei, your screenshots don't show anything logarithmic. Perhaps this is the real reason for the scandalously low numbers of your forecasts for oil or the Russian index. By the way, the logarithmic scale has a very simple explanation: the pair XXXYYY corresponds to the "inverted" YYYXXX, the markup of which should be identical to that of the straight pair.
7. The reduction of Neely's extensive work to a couple of pages of drawings is certainly an extreme simplification and emasculation of the Wave Principle. However, Neely is not considered a classic of EWP. The classics are considered to be the followers of the Elliott branch of analysis - Bolton, Balan, Prechter, etc. Incidentally, Elliott himself was not a successful analyst (indeed, the time when he made his forecasts cannot be called particularly convenient; it was a time of prolonged correction after the Great Depression. There is still debate about when the correction ended). He was simply an accountant who saw order in price movements. He was told about Fibonacci numbers by a friend, and for Elliott himself the properties of Fibonacci numbers were a revelation.
8. Some time ago I used to hang out on a forum of wave-experts-professionals (fxo3.ru or something like that). There is no sensationalism there, like here. There is just a civilized and reasoned justification of suggested markings. Wavesmen professionals consider themselves the elite of the trading community and behave accordingly.
Alexey, I don't expect answers and excuses from you, as I don't think it will change anything in your behaviour: you created the thread for PR, not for demonstrating the Wave Principle work. This is obvious to anyone who has seen the results of your actual trades.
My message is not for you, but for neophytes who will look into this thread and perhaps come across it.
I really didn't want to get involved here, but I still think it would be a good idea to bring some clarity to a subject which is, to put it mildly, not very cautiously named. I myself have spent some time on the Wave Principle and even translated a couple of books, so I can consider my opinion not too amateurish.
There are a few... ... mistakes, absolutely incompatible with the status of a wavehunter, which he attributes to himself. Unfortunately, it seems that people who have made the Wave Principle (hereinafter EWP, Elliott Wave Principle) their life do not participate in this discussion, so its level (if you filter out the messages with outright flooding) cannot be called high. I will only note a few points.
1. the so-called predictions of EWP are never unambiguous and unquestioning. A person making such "predictions" with aplomb goes against the very spirit of EWP. In EWP, there are only scenarios according to which a trader acts at any given moment. Any professional wave trader, unless he is a superficial impostor, always clearly understands that any of the current scenarios can be cancelled and has several different scenarios in mind. He clearly knows that cancelling a scenario won't be his professional disaster - it's just a work in progress. The wave specialist works systematically from the initial point of analysis and experiences a number of disasters of his scenarios, trying to squeeze a reasonable profit out of the price during this time.
Any elementary trading operation of the wave specialist is always a harmonious part of the multi-routine that specifies his actions under a certain price movement scenario. This multi-way is not a simple linear unvariant sequence of entries/exits, but a multivariate tree of actions, the branches of which are selected depending on where the price moved. A part of this multi-way is always a complex management of position sizes (for example, partial closes and pyramiding - but never averaging, much less martingale!)
It is in the sense of multi-runs that pro-wavers usually interpret the results of their operations. In other words, a professional does not consider trades to be isolated from one another. They are always a series of trades, subordinated to a single plan, which depends on a particular scenario of price movement. The result of the series is what he says: "I made a profit" or "I made a loss".
There is nothing similar to scenarios in Alexey's statements.
2 Any entry into the position is always subject to the mandatory setting of both potential exit points, i.e. stop loss and take profit. A professional wolf-worm trader never trades not only without a stop loss, but even without a take profit (if the first one is obvious without any explanation, then the second one is not that well known). Forecasts in the spirit of Alexei Niroba, where only the target (take-profit) is voiced, without specifying a stop-loss and key points refuting/confirming the scenario, are completely inconsistent with the spirit of EWP itself. Incidentally, there is such a wavemaker who has worked on Neely - Bezrodny. Although I have never gravitated towards Neely's version of EWP, I find Bezrodny's predictions to be very calibrated and tactically flawless.
3. In spite of the fact that EWP nominally declares that "all fractals are good", neverthelessprofessionals do not trade on small TF. The smallest working TF of the wave expert is usually H4, well H1 at least. On shallow TFs, according to gurus of EWP, significant wave patterns are not detected. The criterion for the pattern significance - is the correspondence of the pattern to its place among other patterns of different time specification.
4. There is no fixed knowledge, which completes the "sum of knowledge" of the wave-expert. The currency pairs market constantly surprises: there are patterns that are not explicitly described by the classics. (One of them, I remember, was the appearance of a zigzag with wave B exceeding wave A in 2005; it is not absolutely ZZ, but it is the most logical variant from the point of view of its environment; and its mark-up was just 5-3-5, instead of 3-3-5). Recognition of such patterns is usually a consequence of the fact that no other logical way to mark up a chart was possible.
The emergence of new patterns is not usually considered among professionals as something to disprove EWP. They clearly know that EWP is dynamic and allows the inclusion of new patterns. The analysis itself becomes more complicated, of course.
5. Predicting the timeframe for achieving the goals in EWP is not a primary concern. Even the gurus admit that this task is extremely difficult. To solve it, other tools, traditionally not related to EWP, are involved - cycle analysis, for example. Therefore I already considered Alexey's scandalous "prediction" about the timing of movement of the oira from 1.4 to 1.5 "within a couple of weeks" as extremely frivolous from the very beginning. However, Alexey himself said later about the difficulties of timing forecasts.
The common view of professionals on this subject is as follows: the key levels between which the price moves, at some prediction horizon, are "set from above", and some or other fundamental events can significantly delay or bring closer the terms for reaching these levels.
6. It is more reasonable to use a logarithmic rather than a linear scale for long term forecasts. Especially if the anticipated movement is tens of percent of the current price level. Otherwise, a large error will occur. Alexei, your screenshots don't show anything logarithmic. Perhaps this is the real reason for the scandalously low numbers of your forecasts for oil or the Russian index. By the way, the logarithmic scale has a very simple explanation: the pair XXXYYY corresponds to the "inverted" YYYXXX, the markup of which should be identical to that of the straight pair.
7. The reduction of Neely's extensive work to a couple of pages of drawings is certainly an extreme simplification and emasculation of the Wave Principle. However, Neely is not considered a classic of EWP. The classics are considered to be the followers of the Elliott branch of analysis - Bolton, Balan, Prechter, etc. Incidentally, Elliott himself was not a successful analyst (indeed, the time when he made his forecasts cannot be called particularly convenient; it was a time of prolonged correction after the Great Depression. There is still debate about when the correction ended). He was simply an accountant who saw order in price movements. He was told about Fibonacci numbers by a friend, and for Elliott himself the properties of Fibonacci numbers were a revelation.
8. Some time ago I used to hang out on a forum of wave-experts-professionals (fxo3.ru or something like that). There is no sensationalism there, like here. There is just a civilized and reasoned justification of suggested markings. Wavesmen professionals consider themselves the elite of the trading community and behave accordingly.
Alexey, I don't expect answers and excuses from you, as I don't think it will change anything in your behaviour: you created the thread for PR, not for demonstrating the Wave Principle work. This is obvious to anyone who has seen the results of your actual trades.
My message is not for you, but for neophytes who will look into this thread and perhaps come across it.
This thread was not created by you, so it is not for you to decide how to ask me questions.
Before the Euro goes down, it might go up to 1.51.