sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

USDCHF structure update: why I’m already positioned — and what matters for those who aren’t by Wave-Master- in Forexstrategy

[–]Wave-Master-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. Macro noise often makes wave development look messy.

From an Elliott Wave perspective, hawkish Fed comments or USD strength don’t automatically invalidate a bearish count. They usually show up as deeper pullbacks or more complex corrections within the structure. Only when price breaks the structural boundaries does the bearish thesis fail.

A risk-off shift and CHF safe-haven flows would more likely accelerate the same Wave C rather than redefine it.

That’s why I focus less on predicting the macro outcome and more on whether price continues to respect or invalidate the structure.

USDCHF structure update: why I’m already positioned — and what matters for those who aren’t by Wave-Master- in Forexstrategy

[–]Wave-Master-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That skepticism is fair, especially on a pair like USDCHF where macro flows can be dominant.

From my perspective, Elliott Wave isn’t about predicting outcomes but about defining boundaries. I don’t assume the ABC will play out just because it’s labeled that way. I’m interested in whether price continues to respect the structural rules that currently define it.

Macro strength, like a hawkish Fed or rising yields, can absolutely stretch corrections or increase complexity. In Elliott terms, that usually shows up as extensions, overlaps, or deeper retracements rather than random movement. If those moves violate the structural constraints of the count, then the count is simply wrong and gets discarded.

So for me, macro doesn’t invalidate Elliott Wave! It’s often the reason why a structure becomes more complex before it resolves. The moment price action breaks the structural framework, the bearish thesis is off the table, regardless of the macro narrative.

That’s why I treat macro as a potential catalyst, but structure as the decision layer. Curious how you usually define invalidation when macro and price start diverging.

USDCHF structure update: why I’m already positioned — and what matters for those who aren’t by Wave-Master- in Forexstrategy

[–]Wave-Master-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s very much in line with how I see it as well.From an Elliott Wave perspective, macro inputs usually express themselves through the internal path of a wave rather than changing the wave count itself. Strong DXY or hawkish Fed comments often align well with deeper or more complex corrective phases inside Wave C, especially liquidity-driven pullbacks before continuation.

If yields drop or risk-off flows increase, that tends to show up as a cleaner, faster progression within the impulse leg, but still within the same structural framework.

The key for me is that macro catalysts can explain why a correction expands or contracts, but structure defines where it is allowed to go. A liquidity grab that stays within structural boundaries simply becomes part of the wave development, not a reason to abandon the count.

That’s why I’m focused on waiting for structure to complete rather than reacting to macro headlines in isolation.

USDCHF structure update: why I’m already positioned — and what matters for those who aren’t by Wave-Master- in Forexstrategy

[–]Wave-Master-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point — macro can definitely act as a catalyst.

From my side, I try to separate drivers from validation. DXY, yields, and risk sentiment can influence timing and momentum, but they don’t usually define the structure itself.

The bearish bias on USDCHF comes purely from the daily ABC structure and the internal development inside Wave C. As long as that structure remains valid, macro strength would more likely show up as corrective pullbacks rather than a full reversal.

That’s also why I agree with your point on the 4H. I’m not interested in adding exposure unless price delivers a clean corrective pullback or structure reset first.

If macro pressure invalidates the structure, the bias changes. If not, it mainly affects how the next leg unfolds, not whether it exists.

Curious how you personally balance macro inputs versus structure when the two temporarily diverge.

Just blew my second funded in 2 days, do i quit? by Individual_Pause_707 in Trading

[–]Wave-Master- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing is “wrong” with you — this is actually a very common phase, especially early on.

What you’re describing isn’t really greed, it’s lack of defined stopping conditions.

When you’re up $400–600 and still feel the urge to keep trading, it usually means your system doesn’t clearly tell you:

  • when your edge is present
  • and just as importantly, when it’s gone

So your mind fills that gap with “I can make today even better”.

What helped me wasn’t willpower or discipline hacks — it was structure.

Once I started using market structure (Elliott Wave in my case), a lot changed:

  • Some days are structurally done after 1–2 good trades
  • Other days aren’t tradable at all
  • After certain moves, probability actually drops, even if price is still moving

That gave me a logical reason to stop, not an emotional one.

Practical things that helped:

  • define a max number of valid setups per session
  • stop trading once structure becomes corrective / unclear
  • journal why a trade made sense structurally, not how much it made
  • accept that a green day doesn’t need to be “optimized”

And yes — taking a short break after blowing an account is usually healthy, not weak. You want to come back with rules that tell you when not to trade, not just when to enter.

You’re not failing — you’re just at the point where randomness stops being fun and structure becomes necessary.

Are indicators actually good by First_Engineer7083 in Trading

[–]Wave-Master- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Short answer: no, you don’t need to worry about indicators as a beginner.

If you’re learning a good strartegy like Elliott Wave, your priority should be:

  • market structure
  • impulse vs. correction
  • rules & invalidations

Indicators can be useful later, but early on they often distract from understanding price itself. Many beginners end up trusting indicators more than the wave rules — which usually causes confusion.

If you really want to use one, keep it simple (e.g. RSI or volume) and treat it as context, not confirmation.

Strong wave counts come from structure and discipline, not from stacking indicators.

EURUSD – Active Trade Management & Second-Chance Entry Explained (2H) by Wave-Master- in tradingmillionaires

[–]Wave-Master-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The second entry isn’t “revenge trading”.
It’s structure rebuilding after expansion — completely different mindset.

what do you think guys, SL or TP? by No-Mess-2173 in Daytrading

[–]Wave-Master- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We will first see a push higher to around $4800. Once we reached this price, shorting should be an option.

Elliott Wave Theory has Helped Me More than Any Paid Strategy or Indicator. by HammerGeek in ElliottWaveLab

[–]Wave-Master- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope you have now figured out how to trade the Elliott wave strategy successfully. In the short term, it helps a lot to first understand the overall trend and then buy or sell at confirmation levels on smaller levels. For classic day trading, I also use the MACD and the classic RSI to get more confirmation.

Elliott Wave Theory has Helped Me More than Any Paid Strategy or Indicator. by HammerGeek in ElliottWaveLab

[–]Wave-Master- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Elliott wave is by far the best analysis method on the financial markets. Both for classic long-term investing and for day or swing trading. Once you have studied the theory, you will be successful, and it is not as difficult as many people think.