Wave 5 Trade on XRAY NASDAQ

18/01/15 – XRAY NASDAQ – The wave 4 pull back has formed a new low, the oscillator pull back for this wave 4 movement has broken the 140% line and the TJ’s Ellipse did not hold as support.  With these two development there are only 6/9 of my trade setup indicators in the green and makes the wave 5 trade a much lower probability, especially in these volatile markets.  I have therefore cancelled my Stop Buy order for this potential wave 5 trade s I must remain disciplined in these volatile times.  Sometimes it is much harder to walk way from a trade when they still look good as in this case the wave 4 profit take pull back could still find support at the Fibonacci 0.5 retracement level.  But with many other indicators going against the trade it is just wise to walk away. Chart as below.


08/01/15 – XRAY NASDAQ – This Wave 5 Trade opportunity is setting up well with 7/9 of my with trend trade setup indicators in the green, with the 6/4 MA High needing to be crossed before entry to make 8/9 on trigger. The Wave 4 extreme kept hold of the TJ’s Ellipse and also found support at the Fib 0.382 retracement level taken between Wave 2 and Wave 3.  The MACD Histogram is close to crossing from -ve to +ve, with the Signal line also close to crossing the MACD line, another good indicator to bear in mind. Just like my ADI NASDAQ order, the entry strategy for this potential wave 5 trade has to be some what aggressive due to the  tight Risk to Reward profile. As the Trend Channel R is less than 0.9, the 6/4 MA High line has to be crossed before entry into this trade and so the Buy Order is above this and just above the high of yesterday’s session.  Stop Buy Order @ 53.48 with the Stop Loss @ 50.89 and the initial Take Profit Limit Order @ 59.00, giving a Risk to reward profile just above my minimum 1:1.6.  Charts as Below for this wave 5 trade on XRAY NASDAQ trade setup.

wave 5 trade XRAY#1 XRAY#2osc


2 thoughts on “Wave 5 Trade on XRAY NASDAQ

  • 628cre@gmail.com'
    January 9, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Paul – double check the SL level per above…suspect you meant 5090, not 5890

    • paul.bratby@hotmail.com'
      January 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm

      Sorry Ron, 50.89 – I will change post now


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »