Hi Guys,
I decided to begin a new thread on the subject rather then continue on SRJ’s so there would be no confusion on content and to make it easier for others to contribute if they so choose.
Before I begin describing the construction of these charts I first want to address SRJ’s questions first. So are there manual adjustments made during the course of the optimum forecast period? Simply put, none. As a general rule I have never liked the idea of continued adjustments on patterns because I feel it is akin to form fitting the pattern to the data. There are minor exceptions to this but none germane to this discussion. If price moves beyond the spiral lines start the process from the beginning. The shading on the chart simply signifies an area where the pattern may still be valid but is past it’s optimal forecast period. The colors of the vortex are simply yellow, aqua, and lime green for the spokes. Background is dark gray. I actually spend a lot of time working on the colors of my charts and just as Todd does, change them from time to time and have been doing so now for close to 30 years. The reason being because I have found that my eye gets “lazy” after seeing the same colors every day. A change from time to time helps keep my focus sharp. It’s s personal thing and most likely not needed by all. As for a color palette itself, I could have sworn somebody posted something years ago on this. Perhaps another member of the board can help you with this. You might also want to take a look in the W59 library. The last possibility is I’m just plain wrong.
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
The Vortex, along with all other geometric patterns that I use start with the proper scaling of the chart. Over the years I have read many methods on the subject and in my opinion they have ranged from being over complicated to lax. Everything I do in my work has purpose so consequently I don’t like to use random numbers that look good as a starting point. On the flip side I don’t want to have to use some complicated algo to figure out scaling either. Mind you I am not criticizing anyone who employs those methods. If it works for them that’s fine. It just doesn’t work for me. What does work for me is Gerbino Sequence numbers. They start with base 20. To work out the sequence divide it by 13. It will give you the multiplier for numbers above 20 (1.53846). For numbers below 20 divide 13 by 20 for the multiplier (.65). [It should be noted here that this number sequence has many potential and varied uses and encourage all to take a look at them.] On intraday charts I always use the minimum tick value as the points per value, bar as the type choice, and a GS number for the square. As I already stated in SRJ’s Using Truncated Data post I like to get price to fill about 60% of the viewable range on the chart as a goal when doing any kind of pattern work. Naturally the GS value you use as the square input will depend on the market under observation and it’s time period. Once you get use to the approach and gain experience using it you will learn good starting points and only minor alterations will be needed to get correct scaling.
Now that your chart has been properly scaled we can move on to the Vortex itself. As another general rule you will use the next GS number up from the one you used in scaling the chart. For instance, if you used 2.32 for scaling on the chart you will use 3.57 on the Vortex. It is possible you may have to go up to 5.49 as a multiplier, the next value in the sequence but not much higher then that. Remember this is a general rule and not written in stone. In fact you can use any GS value you like but you run the risk of making the pattern either to small or to large. Once again with practice and experience under your belt you will learn what’s right under various conditions. As for the anchor location I start by looking for 3 significant Energy Inflection Points (EIP’s) that are all of the same degree of intensity. There is no latitude on this point. They must be of the same degree of intesity. These EIP’s are typically referred to as A-B-C swings. However I look at them differently. In Energy Flow theory they are referred to as the dominant-subordinate-dominant energy signature. While not part of this conversation the term subordinate is a bit of a misnomer for it plays a crucial role in how energy signatures play out. A topic for another discussion In any case you place the Vortex on the last EIP making sure you have the correct multiplier input in place. Next you start turning the Vortex just as you would per the W59 instructions. In fact the only real difference as I recall (it has been close to 17 years since I last read them) is that I am looking to touch the previous two EIP’s with any combination of spokes and spirals instead of one of each as I believe it is described in the help files. There will be times where there is more then one possibly. If so you will have to choose the best option or construct both and choose which is performing better later on. Another thing to keep in mind is that the lines don’t have to be perfectly placed on price though perfection should be sought when possible. After the Vortex is set in place the last thing to do is make a copy of it using the Create A Parallel Drawing Tool. Before you move it in place back over the original you will subtract 20 or 31 from whatever the current tilt input reads. I use 20 in most of my work. Move it to the anchor EIP and you are done.
This completes the construction portion of this discussion. In part II I will go into some variations that can be used, explain how I use it, and touch on some of it’s deficiencies as I see them.
Joe