Things Remembered...Part 2
31 May 2010
Currency: AUD/JPY
Trading Bias: Bearish (But Cautious to upside)
Fundamental Outlook: RBA Rate Decision (Mon, 5/31 /*Tues *6/1) Australian GDP (Wed, 6/2), U.S. Non-Farm Payrolls (Fri, 6/4)
Last time, we talked about the importance of pattern recognition in trading, as well as its main advantage and disadvantage(s). In this post, we'll disect my two winning AUD/JPY trades from last week in order to better envisage the scope of pattern trading as it applies to both forex and specifically the AUD/JPY. We've already discussed several reasons not to trade the AUD/JPY. This post will either enrich the prior admonition or rather enlighten to the upside of things.
Caught in a Wedge
We already talked about my preference to trade closely to the top of the wedge as a means of lessening the per-trade risk. Now we have to put our Elliott wave and Fibonacci hats on to figure out the next (and equally important) part of the trade: where do we plan to get out.
One thing's for sure about trading: no trade exit is guaranteed. Sure, you can push the button and get auto-filled on up to 50 lots in less than a 30 milliseconds, but there's no guaranteed where you're going to get out...or what shape your position may be in once you decide to exit. Of course, there are countless strategies to pinpoint exits from trades but when you boil it all down...there's a sweet science to getting out of the market. As such, it's usually a very good idea to have some plan in mind for exit
before you actually get in. You'll not understand the implications thereof until "it" happens to you...but hopefully this post will give some of the veteran traders a bit of insight into that which they already know too well.
Figure 1: 1-hr Chart for AUD/JPY from May 26, 2010
I shorted 74.89 on the 2pm CDT close of what looked to be a decent evening star pattern. From this point my risk was 80 pips from my stop--which is double my normal take--but I more than doubled the length of exit based upon what I thought was going to happen. And that's where the fun starts.
Okay, time for some Elliott Wave.
In a classical 5-wave setup--no matter whether a Wave A,C,1,3,or 5--the internal 5-wave setup will mostly adhere to impulse rules. That means you can apply what you know at a larger level to a smaller one and achieve much desired results.
I shorted into the trade confident that we were in the final (read: 5th) wave of some pattern...most likely a Wave C or a Wave 3. That meant that the internals to the wave were what I needed in order to pick off my exit point...making this a relatively easy setup.
Since Wave 3 of the pattern was approximately 200% of Wave 1, I had a good feeling that Wave 5 was going to tend towards equality with respect to Wave 1. Therefore, I expected my terminal target point for the short to be roughly the same length as Wave 1.
According to what I have in Figure 1, Wave 1 of this pattern starts at 84.48 and ends at 79.96, making it 454 pips long. Therefore, I suspected Wave 5 would be roughly the same size given the equality relationship. Therefore, if Wave 5 starts at 75.50, we wouldn't see an end until approximately 71.00 according to this logic.
But as you can see from Figure 1, the low was 72.04. So what happened?
I'll call it faulty logic based on a standard Elliott wave assumption. Does that make Elliott's Fibonacci work wrong? No. But it does mean that you have to look at more factors than just the standard assumptions in order to trade with efficiency.
In this case, I didn't. I saw the sharp bounce at 72.04 and ignored it; I set my stops to even and went on with life. Fortunately, the backlash against the low didn't move too rapidly for me to notice the breach of the 61.8% level.
What? Why 61.8%
That's right. Anytime an impulse wave is retraced more than 61.8%, I start to re-evaluate the situation. For this situation, it was 74.13...which is 61.8% of the distance from 75.50 to 72.04. I took profit on the position at 72.21 for a gain of
+67....after being up more than
+280.
That's a huge difference and, unlike many trades, this one could have been avoided by using appropriate Wave conditions.
There's a rule that states an extended wave has to be
at least 161.8% larger than the next longest wave in the impulse structure. There's also a rule that states the minimum projection of an extended Wave 3 with respect to Wave 1 is 161.8% internal. And yet, we can clearly see in Figure 1 that Wave 3 is 200% of Wave 1. Given this overshot, we shouldn't expect Wave 5 to be greater than or equal to Wave 1 but rather...it should be shorter.
How much shorter? Well, I don't have an exact answer, but from my empirical findings, it's all about ratios.
Let's look at Wave 3. Since it is roughly 200% of Wave 1 and the standard relationship calls for Wave 3 to be 161.8% of Wave 1, then we can say that Wave 3 is 123.6% times larger than its standard equality relationship. As such, instead of Wave 5 being 100% of Wave 1, it should be the inverse of 123.6% (80.9%) times Wave 1. Taking 80.9% of Wave 1's length (454 pips) from the end of Wave 4 @ 75.50 yields 71.82...a much closer approximation to the 72.04 low.
HOWEVER, being more accurate yields even better results.
From peak to peak, Wave 3 is actually 215% longer than wave 1. Dividing this difference by the 161.8% standard yields a 133% increase. Taking the inverse of 1.33 comes to approximately 75%. 75% of Wave 1's length when taken from the end of Wave 4 comes to 72.09, which is--for all practical purposes--spot on.
My only regret is that I didn't think of this
last week.
.........................
"A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others." - Ayn Rand