In-depth trading ideas

Discover detailed market analysis from traders. See how others approach this instrument, compare different strategies, and discover perspectives that can shape your own view.

From Asia to London: Session Transitions Training Guys, in forex and gold markets there are three main sessions: The Asian session often sets the initial bias of the day. The London session increases volume and makes breakouts clearer. The New York session usually brings the highest volatility. During session transitions, price movements can accelerate. Imagine you opened a trade right at the London session open. At that moment, there’s usually a sharp move — it’s London announcing “I’m here.” If you already have open positions, be careful not to get caught by the opposite move. During the opening minutes, it’s best to observe carefully and wait for direction to settle. That’s why knowing which session you’re trading in is crucial. I provide these trainings completely free for you, my dear friends. I sincerely thank all my friends who support me with their likes.📊🫡

How Far Is Far? From Price Distance to Standardized RSI Suppose someone tells you: The current price is 30% above its 200-day moving average. The statement sounds informative because it gives both a reference point and a distance. But it still leaves out the part that matters most: is 30% a normal displacement for this market, or an extreme one? Raw distance tells us where price is relative to an average, but not how large that displacement is relative to the normal movement of the series. To make the number comparable, distance needs a reference scale. --- This idea begins with the familiar Bollinger Band framework, then uses RSI Chart Overlay to make the same measurement problem visible on price. From there, we can see why a bounded RSI scale needs a different coordinate system before different lookback lengths can be compared. --- 1. Giving distance a unit One of the most familiar ways to give distance a scale is Bollinger Bands. Let's start with a 20-bar moving average and bands two standard deviations above and below it. Instead of saying only that price is a certain number of dollars or percent away from the average, we can express the displacement in standard-deviation units: z = (Price - Average) / Standard Deviation Now the distance is dimensionless. A reading of +1 means that price is one standard deviation above its average. A reading of +2 means two standard deviations above it. On a conventional 20-bar chart, this feels natural because the center, the scale and the outer reference levels all behave in a familiar way. That is why the z-score is such an attractive answer to the original question. It appears to turn raw distance into a common unit of extension. I used this public Rolling Z-score script. --- 2. What happens at a very short lookback? After going from 20 days to 5 days, the picture changes immediately. The standardized series remains crowded inside the ±2 reference lines, even though price is moving aggressively over the short window. The supposedly common unit of extension is clearly behaving differently from the 20-bar example. That is the important observation: We changed the lookback, but the supposed common unit of extension stopped behaving in a visually comparable way. A z-score still gives distance a unit, yet the result is not independent of the geometry created by the window used to calculate it. --- 3. The common workaround A practical response is simply to avoid very short lookbacks. Many indicators impose a minimum input, and many traders naturally gravitate toward lengths where the familiar band structure looks more stable. That can be perfectly reasonable as a usage rule, but it is still a workaround. --- 4. RSI makes the same problem more obvious Price-based rolling z-scores already become awkward at short lookbacks. RSI sharpens the issue because its raw coordinate has hard bounds: it cannot move above 100 or below 0. This is where RSI Chart Overlay becomes useful as an explanatory tool. In the AdaptiveRSI representation, RSI describes normalized price position relative to the Wilder moving average of the same length. The key relationship is simple: RSI 50 corresponds to price at Wilder EMA(n). This lets us treat RSI not only as an oscillator pane, but as a coordinate system that can be translated back into price. RSI Chart Overlay projects chosen RSI coordinates back onto the price chart. RSI 50 becomes the middle line. A selected RSI level above 50 becomes a price band above it, and a selected value below 50 becomes a corresponding band below it. We do not need the full RSI derivation here; we only need this mapping so that the geometry of the RSI scale can be seen directly on price. --- 5. Equal standardized steps do not occupy equal price space Now take RSI(14), but instead of starting with familiar raw levels such as 70 and 30, start with equal positions on a standardized scale. z = 0 → RSI 50.00 z = +1 → RSI 63.52 z = +2 → RSI 75.20 The negative side is symmetric around 50. We can already see that the distance from 0 to +1 is larger than the distance from +1 to +2. RSI Chart Overlay is not creating that compression. It is exposing it. The Overlay projects raw RSI coordinates onto price, and those raw RSI coordinates are already getting closer together as standardized position moves farther from the center. The supporting formula is: Price offset = (RSI - 50) / 50 × CC volatility × (n - 1) Full overlay formulas: Projecting RSI Levels Directly onto Price The formula matters only because it confirms what the chart already shows: when the gaps between raw RSI coordinates shrink, their projected gaps on price shrink with them. --- 6. The same compression is visible on the 0–100 scale The price chart is showing the same geometry that exists inside RSI itself. For RSI(14), the equal standardized steps map to: z = 0 → RSI 50.00 z = +1 → RSI 63.52 z = +2 → RSI 75.20 z = +3 → RSI 84.08 The standardized increments are identical, but the raw RSI increments are not. The move from 50.00 to 63.52 uses 13.52 RSI points. The next move, from 63.52 to 75.20, uses 11.68 points. The move from 75.20 to 84.08 uses only 8.88. This is the tail-compression problem in its simplest form. The closer RSI gets to 100, the less raw coordinate space remains for the next equal standardized move. The same happens toward 0. A bounded scale therefore gives progressively less visual resolution to increasingly extreme standardized positions. --- 7. RSI(2) makes the problem obvious RSI(2) is the useful stress test because a very short RSI spends much more time near the boundaries. Use the same market and the same period in two aligned panes. The difference is not that one pane contains more market information than the other. They represent the same underlying RSI observations. The difference is that the raw pane compresses increasingly extreme values into the last few RSI points before 0 or 100, while the standardized Logit RSI pane gives those tail observations additional room. That distinction matters at very short lengths. A common workaround for awkward short-lookback behavior is simply to avoid very short n. Standardized Logit RSI is designed to remove the bounded-scale problem instead, so RSI(2) can remain on a usable standardized axis rather than being excluded by construction. Logit RSI script: --- 8. Why raw RSI 70 is not universal The bounded scale is only one part of the problem. Lookback length changes the meaning of a raw RSI value as well. The same standardized position maps to very different raw RSI values at different lengths, and the same raw RSI value maps to very different standardized positions. RSI 70 is therefore a coordinate on the 0–100 scale, not a universal measure of extremity. --- 9. Two transformations, two jobs The complete transformation from raw RSI to Logit RSI has two separate jobs: Logit transform addresses the hard 0/100 bounds. The theoretical scale then addresses lookback dependence. That is all we need from the mathematics at this stage. Logit opens the bounded coordinate system. The length scaling puts different RSI lengths onto a common standardized axis. RSI 0–100 → Logit → unbounded coordinate → length scaling → standardized z Different RSI lengths still represent different horizons and will not produce identical paths or signals. Standardization makes their positions comparable; it does not make the underlying series the same. --- 10. Define zones in standardized space first Once RSI is expressed on a common standardized axis, reference regions can be defined in z-space first and then translated back to the raw RSI scale for the selected lookback length. The current AdaptiveRSI framework uses: |z| ≤ 0.66 → Body / consolidation 0.66 < |z| ≤ 1.00 → Support / resistance region 1.00 < |z| ≤ sqrt(3) → Trend region sqrt(3) < |z| ≤ 2.14 → Overbought / oversold stretch |z| > 2.14 → Tails Full math: RSI Beyond 70/30: Position, Structure, and Adaptive Zones This also makes it possible to compare different RSI lengths on the same standardized basis. --- 11. From fixed levels to a common measure of position The practical consequence is that raw RSI levels should not be treated as universal units of extension. A reading such as RSI 70 tells us where the oscillator is on its 0–100 scale, but its standardized position depends strongly on lookback length. The price projection makes the geometry visible. Equal steps in standardized space become progressively narrower when translated back to raw RSI and then projected onto price. Logit removes that bounded-scale compression, while the 2 / sqrt(n - 1) scaling provides a common length-aware coordinate system. The main takeaway is that RSI can be treated as a standardized measure of position around its Wilder EMA equilibrium. The underlying information does not change. The coordinate system used to measure it does. Related tools: RSI Chart Overlay Logit RSI RSI Adaptive Zones RSI Tutorials: Projecting RSI Levels Directly onto Price RSI Beyond 70/30: Position, Structure, and Adaptive Zones © AdaptiveRSI

Gold Shines: Safe-Haven Rebound Defies Aggressive Fed Rate Hikes In this Weekly Market Forecast, we will analyze Gold for the week of Sep 21 - 25th. Gold is leaning bullish this week, demonstrating impressive resilience. Despite the Federal Reserve’s hawkish interest rate hike to a 3.75%–4.00% range, the precious metal successfully rebounded to finish last week strong at $4,414.50 per ounce. Enjoy! May profits be upon you. Leave any questions or comments in the comment section. I appreciate any feedback from my viewers! Like and/or subscribe if you want more accurate analysis. Thank you so much! Disclaimer: I do not provide personal investment advice and I am not a qualified licensed investment advisor. All information found here, including any ideas, opinions, views, predictions, forecasts, commentaries, suggestions, expressed or implied herein, are for informational, entertainment or educational purposes only and should not be construed as personal investment advice. While the information provided is believed to be accurate, it may include errors or inaccuracies. I will not and cannot be held liable for any actions you take as a result of anything you read here. Conduct your own due diligence, or consult a licensed financial advisor or broker before making any and all investment decisions. Any investments, trades, speculations, or decisions made on the basis of any information found on this channel, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise.

16:26

I Looked At The GOLD Chart For Next Week... It’s Insane.In this upcoming week's gold weekly analysis, we break down the critical institutional order flow shifts on XAUUSD that most retail traders completely miss. If you want to know where smart money is moving their capital next week, this gold trading strategy video reveals the exact liquidity pools and footprint chart imbalances you need to watch.At Flow Trading Academy, we don't guess—we follow the data. We dive deep into XAUUSD technical analysis, looking at the invisible order flow dynamics, buyer/seller absorption patterns, and market structure shifts that signal major price reversals before they happen. Whether you are looking for a reliable gold breakout strategy or trying to avoid the classic retail liquidity traps, this video gives you an institutional edge.

01:54

Sell Recommendation – Penis-Shaped Sell Recommendation – Penis-Shaped Wave Pattern: On the gold CFD chart, a wave formation that visually resembles a penis — a long upward thrust with a rounded top — has completed near the 4300 resistance zone. This pattern suggests bullish exhaustion and a possible bearish reversal. Consider selling on a break below the wave’s support/neckline, with a target at 4240 and a stop-loss above the wave’s high, around 4305–4310. If price instead breaks and holds above 4300, the bearish setup is invalid. Always use proper risk management. This is not financial advice.

GOLD WEEK AHEAD — SETUP IS THERE, NOW WE WAIT New week. New levels. And after adding IV Rank into my view, I'm starting to see another layer of information that I think can help with timing these moves. Looking at how Gold closed last week, I'm coming into this week with a bullish lean. Price finished the week strong and is currently sitting just above a 1H Bullish FVG. Now I'm watching to see whether Gold wants to come back down and fill that imbalance before the Killzone window opens. That's where things get interesting. 🔵 THE LEVEL I'M WATCHING The biggest level for me right now is around 4390. That's the POC for the previous month, so I'm treating it as an important area of acceptance/rejection. If price pulls into the 1H FVG and we can hold around that 4390 area, I want to see how buyers respond. My ideal sequence would look something like: 1H FVG fill → 4390 holds → sellers lose momentum → buyers step in → reclaim/hold higher → continuation. That's the setup I'm interested in. I'm not trying to buy simply because price touches the FVG. I want to see the reaction. 📊 IV RANK HAS MY ATTENTION This is one of the newer things I've added to my charting process. The Gold Volatility Index / IV Rank is giving me another piece of information about the current volatility environment. And after watching how it behaved around last week's move, I'm interested in seeing whether that volatility backdrop continues to support expansion this week. But I'm keeping this distinction clear: IV Rank doesn't tell me which direction price has to go. It helps give me context. Price still has to confirm the direction. That's why I'm combining it with my FVG, volume profile, POC, order flow and Killzone structure. 🔴 WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND? If Gold comes down through the 1H FVG and breaks below 4390, I'm not going to keep trying to force the bullish idea. That's my cue to step back. If we lose that monthly POC and sellers begin accepting price below it, then I need to let the market show me where it actually wants to go. There are lower levels and larger areas of interest beneath us. I don't need to predict which one gets hit. I'll wait for price to get there and react. 🎯 THE PLAN Right now I'm watching two scenarios. 🟢 BULLISH Price fills the 1H FVG. 4390 holds. Sellers fail to continue lower. Buyers take control. Then I want to see price start pushing back toward the upper levels, with the previous weekly high around 4439 and the overhead H4 bearish FVG becoming areas I'll be watching for reaction. 🔴 BEARISH / HANDS OFF Price breaks through the FVG. 4390 fails. Sellers accept below the monthly POC. I'm out of the way. No forcing a long. No trying to catch a falling knife. Just wait for the next meaningful level. 👀 THIS IS THE PART I'M REALLY WATCHING The setup isn't: "Gold is bullish, so I'm buying." It's: "Gold is positioned for expansion. Here's my level. Now show me whether buyers are willing to defend it." That's a much better trade. The FVG gives me the location. The Monthly POC gives me the line in the sand. IV Rank gives me volatility context. The Killzone gives me my timing. And order flow tells me whether buyers are actually taking control. That's the edge I'm trying to build. Don't predict the move. Build the conditions. Then let price confirm it. Let's see what Gold gives us this week. 👊🏾 #Gold #MGC #GC #GoldFutures #FuturesTrading #OrderFlow #PriceAction #FVG #VolumeProfile #IVRank #Volatility #TradingView #MarketStructure #DayTrading #FuturesTrader #GoldTrading

02:27

1OZ - Gold Futures - Revolving around 4300-4400$Just watching on higher time frame (4H) it trapped between 4300s and 4400s. Also, it seems it currently reacts to Fed news and Iran war, and global inflation reports. It's really good for trading in between when we consider 5 mins timeframe, but cautiously watching major trend lines + support and resistant levels.

by rakshitha_m_rodrigo

Gold Holds Firm as US Dollar Momentum Starts to Fade Gold has retraced for a fourth week, with a small bullish hammer respecting the 50-week EMA and weekly VOPC showing demand around 4300. It also suggests bears are losing steam, given bearish volatility is waning. Note the bullish engulfing candle on the daily around the 50-day EMA. Prices are now consolidating around the upper half of last week’s range. The near-term bias is to seek dips within last week’s range while prices hold above last week’s low, with 4500 and 5600 being possible upside targets. But one thing that has really caught my attention is how gold has remained supported despite the strength of the US dollar index. Given bullish momentum is waning on DXY, even a minor pullback on the dollar could benefit gold over the near term. A break beneath last week’s low invalidates my near-term bullish bias, or a sudden spike of bearish volatility could serve as an early warning sentiment has changed. MS

by StoneX Trading

GOLD - long at VAL or 2nd vwap deviation GOLD - long at VAL or 2nd vwap deviation 1st buy zone is POC + val at $4336 2nd buy zone $4182 - $4245 key goals $4559 $4765 as i told in a video - best confirmation is a volume absorbtion

04:01

by Yuriy_Bishko

Gold Gold prices edged lower toward $4,350 on Monday, pressured by a stronger US dollar and profit-taking after last week’s rally, while investors continued to monitor developments in the Middle East. Bullion reached its highest level in more than a week on Friday as falling oil prices eased concerns over prolonged inflationary pressures. Oil prices extended their decline at the start of the week as investors

Gold Gold prices eased to around $4,330 an ounce on Tuesday, extending losses from the previous session as hawkish comments from Federal Reserve officials reinforced expectations that US interest rates will remain higher for longer. The US central bank raised its policy rate by 25 basis points last week, marking its first such move in three years, while Chair Kevin Warsh signaled that further rate increases could

Gold (GC) Analysis, Key-Zones, Setup for Mon (Sep 21)Bias: December gold settled Friday at 4,424.9, up 25.2 on the session. That is a gain of 0.57 percent from Thursday's 4,399.7 close, but the shape of the day matters more than the size of the gain. The contract opened at 4,381.6, which was 18.1 beneath the prior settlement, traded down to 4,372.2, then recovered the entire deficit and closed at 4,424.9, a gain of 43.3 from its own open and 78.0 percent of the way up the session range measured from the low. A gap-down open that closes in the upper part of the session range is a reversal signature, and the documented facts are the 43.3 point open-to-close rise and the 78.0 percent closing position. The one United States activity release captured for the session, industrial production at 09:15 AM ET, printed 0.0 percent against a 0.3 percent forecast, with capacity utilisation at 76.3 percent against 76.4 percent expected, which is supportive for gold at the margin. The complication is the yield side, where the captured market wrap headline described ten-year yields rising during the session, with no level or quote time captured, raising the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset. The policy backdrop remains restrictive: the central bank projections published Wednesday show twelve of eighteen officials expecting one further 25 basis point increase this year. The medium-term picture is still damaged. Price sits 23.47 percent beneath its 52-week high of 5,781.8, it is down 3.20 percent over twenty sessions, and it remains 67.2 beneath the 20-day average of 4,492.1 and 223.7 beneath the 200-day average of 4,648.6, with a multi-indicator composite reading just 32 percent buy at weak strength, though its direction is rated strengthening. What argues the other way is momentum: the stochastic percent K sits above percent D on both the 9-day and 14-day horizons, at 52.73 against 37.58 and 36.85 against 25.09, and price closed 12.6 above its own pivot point of 4,412.3 and back above both the 50-day average of 4,342.8 and the 100-day average of 4,410.5. The trend framework says neither side owns this market, with a 14-day directional index of 16.42 and the two directional components separated by five hundredths of a point. Bias is constructive on a pullback into the 4,397 to 4,385 grouping, and this is a levels market rather than a trend market. Two days of headline exposure separate Friday's settlement from the Sunday reopen at 06:00 PM ET, including a Chinese loan prime rate decision at 09:00 PM ET Saturday, per the news-feed calendar captured for this run, unconfirmed against the verified forward calendar. Resistance: - 4,520.0 (Pivot R3, outermost resistance of Monday's ladder) - 4,514.1 (50 percent retracement of the four-week range) - 4,492.1 (20-day moving average, the level the short-term composite signal is measured against) - 4,479.9 (Pivot R2, grouped with the 2 standard deviation resistance at 4,477.2) - 4,472.5 (38.2 percent retracement from the 13-week high, 4.7 beneath the 2 standard deviation resistance) - 4,452.4 (Pivot R1, effectively identical to the computed target price at 4,452.0) - 4,439.8 (Friday's session high) Support: - 4,412.3 (Pivot Point, the mechanical midpoint the session closed above) - 4,410.5 (100-day moving average, reclaimed on the session and the nearest trend line above the entry zone) - 4,387.9 (1 standard deviation support) - 4,385.3 (50 percent retracement of the 13-week range) - 4,384.8 (Pivot S1, three references inside 3.1 points with the two levels above, adjacent beneath the 4,385 zone edge) - 4,372.2 (Friday's session low, effectively identical to the 2 standard deviation support at 4,372.6) - 4,360.8 (3 standard deviations support, outer statistical band) - 4,344.7 (Pivot S2, second pivot support of Monday's ladder) Primary Setup: LONG December gold from the 4,385 to 4,397 entry zone, built on the grouping where the one standard deviation support at 4,387.9, the 50 percent retracement of the 13-week range at 4,385.3 and the first pivot support at 4,384.8 sit inside 3.1 points, the last of those adjacent beneath the zone's lower edge. Stop at 4,358, beneath the third standard deviation support at 4,360.8, which itself sits beneath Friday's low at 4,372.2 and the effectively coincident second standard deviation support at 4,372.6. Targets at 4,440 first, Friday's session high, then 4,452 second, where the computed target price at 4,452.0 and the first pivot resistance at 4,452.4 sit within half a point of each other, and 4,480 third, the second pivot resistance grouped with the second standard deviation resistance at 4,477.2 and the 38.2 percent retracement from the 13-week high at 4,472.5, only if momentum extends on expanding volume. Measured from the 4,391 midpoint against the 4,358 stop, risk is 33 points for approximately 1:1.5 to the first target, 1:1.8 to the second and 1:2.7 to the third. Invalidation is a settlement beneath 4,360.8, which takes out Friday's low and the second standard deviation band together. The 33 point risk is 30 percent of the 14-day average true range of 108.7, so the stop is tight by this contract's standards, and the weekend carries a Chinese loan prime rate decision at 09:00 PM ET Saturday with calendar forecasts of 3 percent and 3.5 percent, per the news-feed calendar captured for this run, unconfirmed against the verified forward calendar. The cash open at 09:30 AM ET Monday gives the first liquid directional test of the map above. The calendar captured for Monday shows no United States data release; the week's first-order risk for this metal is Tuesday, when three central bank speakers and a two-year note auction land, at 10:05 AM ET, 10:20 AM ET and 01:00 PM ET with the auction also at 01:00 PM ET, per the news-feed calendar captured for this run, unconfirmed against the verified forward calendar.

GOLD — STILL STUCK IN THE RANGE New day, same question: Is Gold preparing to continue higher, or does it need to sweep the lows first? Right now price is still stuck in consolidation around the monthly POC near 4384–4390. We had an attempt toward the previous daily high during the pre-Asian session, but price stalled before reaching it. That tells me buyers have not fully taken control yet. But it also doesn't automatically mean sellers are in control. For now, this is still a balanced market. 🔵 THE BULLISH SCENARIO Based on Monday’s low, I would like to see price sweep that level before I consider a long. Monday’s low is sitting around 4360.6. If price breaks lower, runs those lows, and then rejects back above the level, I’ll be paying close attention. What I want to see is: Range break → Monday’s low sweep → sellers fail to continue → buyers reclaim the level → confirmation. That would give me a reason to believe the downside move was more of a liquidity grab than true bearish continuation. But I’m not buying simply because the low gets swept. The reaction afterward is what matters. 🔴 WHAT WOULD KEEP ME OUT? If price breaks below Monday’s low and begins accepting underneath it, I’m hands off. At that point, I have to respect the possibility that price wants to reach lower — potentially toward the previous weekly low around 4339.7 or the larger demand area beneath it. I don't want to sit there trying to convince myself that the market has to reverse just because I wanted a sweep. If the level fails, the level fails. 📈 UPSIDE SCENARIO Of course, price could still break higher first. If buyers push through the range and hold above it, I’ll watch how price reacts around the previous daily high near 4422.2. If we get acceptance above that level, the previous weekly high around 4438.3 becomes the next area I’m watching. But if price breaks higher and immediately falls back into the range, that could simply be another failed breakout and rotation back toward the lower end. 🎯 MY PLAN Right now, the market is too choppy for me to force anything. I’m waiting for: A range break. A reaction at a meaningful level. Order flow confirmation. Then an entry. I still have a bullish lean, but I’m not treating Monday’s low as a guaranteed sweep or assuming the weekly low is already in place. It’s still early in the week. We haven't established the true weekly high or low yet. For now, I’m letting price develop and waiting for it to show me whether the next move is a real breakout or just another liquidity run. No need to predict the move. Let the reaction give us the information. #Gold #MGC #GC #GoldFutures #FuturesTrading #OrderFlow #PriceAction #VolumeProfile #LiquiditySweep #MarketStructure #TradingView #DayTrading #FVG #GoldTrading

02:35

How GOLD monday went after the analysis learn the gold market reacted after our weekly analysis. there's a lot of gold to be found

01:03

GOLD FUTURES ANALYSIS 9/25/26 Gold has rebounded from support circa 4,275–4,295 to meet resistance at 4,330–4,340. The short-term bounce is credible, but the 1H and 4H charts still show lower highs. The main question is whether price can close above resistance on the 30 minute chart and then hold that area on a pullback. If, instead, it breaks briefly above resistance and returns below 4,320, the bounce may have trapped late buyers. Market structure The move from roughly 4,302 to 4,330 improved short-term momentum. Buying pressure has risen on the 5 minute chart, and cumulative volume delta (CVD, the running balance of buying and selling at market) turned up on the 30 minute chart. The evidence is still mixed: volume was light, CVD flattened near the high, and a longer-view money-flow measure remains negative. The 1H chart retains lower highs beneath a descending resistance line. On the 4H, the bounce began near the lower end of its recent trading range, so it could still prove to be a false upside break. A held move above resistance would provide stronger evidence than the initial rally. Price action on the Daily also remains below recent recovery highs after falling from roughly 4,750 in late August. Support on that horizon lies near 4,255, with a much broader weekly support area around 4,000–4,100. Since the 22 September, the old 4,390 and 4,360 pivots have failed. The former 4,400–4,420 upside area is now distant resistance rather than a near-term trigger. KEY LEVELS The immediate working range on GC1! is approximately 4,300–4,340. Price repeatedly crossing 4,318–4,328 without stronger volume or directional follow-through offers little edge. 4,330–4,340 — FIRST RESISTANCE TEST The recent intraday high, a descending 48-minute resistance line, a footprint selling zone and a prior market-profile high cluster here. One brief move above the band is insufficient; watch for completed closes above it and a pullback that holds. 4,350–4,365 — SECOND RESISTANCE TEST This former breakdown area is the next place to judge whether buyers can maintain control. Reassess the trade here before assuming a move to 4,400. 4,375–4,400 — FOUR-HOUR TREND REPAIR Prior high-volume trading and moving resistance sit in this band. Sustained trade above it would challenge the current sequence of lower highs. 4,420–4,460 — LATER UPSIDE REFERENCES Prior market-profile highs and a former point of control near 4,457 become relevant only after price establishes acceptance above 4,400. 4,318–4,323 — NEAR-TERM PIVOT This area was tested during the latest breakout and pullback. Repeated completed closes below it weaken the bounce. 4,300–4,310 — LOWER BALANCE AREA Trading has begun to concentrate here. If price rejects 4,330–4,340 and volume builds near 4,300, the market may be finding a lower value area. 4,275–4,295 — SUPPORT AND REVERSAL TEST This zone includes the September 24 lows and the lower boundary of the recent trading range. A sweep below it followed by a reclaim could support a long setup; its first touch alone is not a buy signal. 4,250–4,255 and 4,200 — CONDITIONAL DOWNSIDE OBJECTIVES The first is nearby daily support. A move toward 4,200 requires continued selling and sustained trade below 4,275. FAVORED TRADING SCENARIOS These are scenarios, not setups, strictly speaking. ‘Acceptance’ below means completed candles beyond a level followed by a retest that holds, preferably with confirming volume or CVD. By 'sweep' I mean a brief move through a level that fails to hold. For each scenario, place the stop beyond the actual swing or retest that defines it, and compare the first target with that risk after fees and slippage. BREAKOUT AND RETEST LONG Require at least two completed 24-minute closes above 4,330–4,340, followed by a pullback that holds about 4,325–4,330 and forms a higher low. Improving volume or CVD adds confirmation. First target: 4,350–4,365. Consider 4,380–4,400 only if the 48-minute or four-hour chart also strengthens. Repeated closes below 4,320 cancel the breakout; a stop belongs below the actual retest low. FAILED BREAKOUT SHORT If price briefly clears 4,330–4,340, then completes a 24-minute close below 4,320 and cannot regain it, a short becomes possible. Weakening CVD would reinforce the signal. First target: 4,305–4,310. Extend toward 4,290–4,275 only if selling strengthens and price begins trading below the 4,300 area. A successful retest above 4,340 invalidates the idea. Avoid entering so late that the first target offers inadequate reward. REVERSAL LONG AT LOWER SUPPORT A dip through 4,275–4,295 must be followed by evidence of buyers absorbing the selling, a 24-minute close back above 4,300–4,310, and a higher low. Reassess first at 4,320–4,330. A later move toward 4,350–4,365 needs stronger buying participation. The stop goes below the actual sweep low; sustained four-hour trade below 4,275 cancels the reversal idea. BREAKDOWN AND FAILED-RETEST SHORT Require a completed 24-minute or 48-minute close below 4,275–4,290, followed by an unsuccessful attempt to recover the broken support and stronger selling volume. First target: 4,250–4,255. Treat 4,200 as a later possibility only if weakness persists. A prompt recovery toward 4,300 cancels continuation; the stop belongs above the failed retest high. NOTATAS BENE The annotated chart uses 48-minute GC1! candles. Chart labels mark the same price areas discussed above; the entry tests use completed 24-minute candles. 4,330–4,340 DECISION | 24M CLOSE + RETEST The red band is the primary resistance test. “Close + retest” means two completed 24-minute candles above the band, then a pullback that holds near it. The next area to check is 4,350–4,365. 4,350–4,365 NEXT ACCEPTANCE GATE The dotted overhead line marks the second resistance test. A momentary spike past the red band does not clear this level. 4,380–4,400 4H REPAIR / SUPPLY The upper red line marks resistance on the four-hour chart. It matters after the nearer zones have been reclaimed; it is not the first target of a breakout. 4,318–4,323 PIVOT | FADE ON FAILED RECLAIM This dotted line marks the near-term dividing area. “Fade” refers to a potential short after a false upside break: a completed 24-minute close below 4,320 and an unsuccessful attempt to recover it. An intrabar dip alone is insufficient. 4,300–4,310 BALANCE / WAIT The yellow band marks an area where trading has concentrated. Multiple crossings with little follow-through favor waiting for a clearer test at an edge of the range. 4,275–4,295 LOWER EDGE | ABSORPTION TEST The teal band is possible support. “Absorption” means selling reaches the area but fails to push price lower, followed by a recovery. The dotted 4,275 line is the breakdown threshold; sustained trade below it shifts attention toward 4,255 and, conditionally, 4,200. MA’S FAST KAMA (10,2,30): PURPLE SLOW KAMA (10,5,30): PINK INFO BOX The arrows summarize three separate paths: a held break over 4,330–4,340 tests 4,350–4,365; a failed breakout below 4,320 tests 4,305 and then 4,290; sustained trade below 4,275 tests 4,255. “WAIT” covers choppy trade between the triggers.

GOLD - LONG is coming!GOLD - LONG is coming! price is in dawnwas trend as i mentioned in previus analysis it bounced from key zone and teach vwao at 4560 at this momnet best area for short also at vwap best area for long at LVN ($4188 - $4290 area) or 2nd buy zone swing low $4000 area

03:13

by Yuriy_Bishko

GOLD — THE SETUP FINALLY SHOWED ITS HAND Yesterday I talked about waiting for Gold to come down into the H4 FVG, sweep the lows, and then show me whether buyers were actually going to step back in. Well... That's exactly what happened. Price swept the lows, pushed into the area I was watching, and then buyers stepped in and started driving price higher. I didn't try to catch the exact bottom. I waited for the reaction. And that patience paid off. 🔵 NOW WE HAVE A PULLBACK Going into the NY session today, Gold started pulling back after the initial move higher. Instead of chasing the move, I waited. Price eventually came back down into the 1H FVG I had marked out. That's where things got interesting. At the same time, I'm watching GVZ and its IV Rank, which had moved into an area that, based on the way I use this tool, supported the potential for another strong move. Now I had multiple pieces coming together: Liquidity sweep ✅ H4 FVG reaction ✅ 1H FVG pullback/fill ✅ GVZ/IV Rank confirmation ✅ Price reclaiming session value ✅ That's the type of confluence I'm looking for. 🎯 THE ENTRY I took the long at: 4373.1 The important thing for me wasn't simply that price touched the FVG. It was the reaction around the level. I wanted to see buyers defend the area and price begin accepting back inside the session's value. Once price moved back inside value, I was able to move my stop and take some risk off the table. Now I'm simply letting the trade develop. 👀 WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO This is where trading can get dangerous. Once you're in a trade and it's moving your way, it's very easy to start thinking: "This thing is going to the moon." 😂 Nah. I'm still watching the same thing I was watching before I entered: Is price continuing to accept higher? If buyers maintain control, I'll let it work. If the market tells me that the move is losing momentum, I'll respect that too. The setup doesn't become invalid just because I want the trade to keep going. 🧠 THIS IS WHY I WAIT The original idea wasn't: "Gold is going down into this FVG, so I'm buying it." It was: Let price come to the level → watch the reaction → confirm the buyers → then participate. That's a completely different mindset. The sweep gave me the location. The FVG gave me the area. Order flow and value helped me with the timing. And once the market showed me buyers were willing to take control... I got on the ride. That's trading for me. I don't need to predict the move. I just need to be ready when the setup actually presents itself. 📈 CURRENTLY RIDING THE LONG FROM 4373.1 Now let's see what Gold wants to do. Price showed its hand. I just made sure I was paying attention. 👊🏾 #Gold #MGC #GC #GoldFutures #FuturesTrading #OrderFlow #PriceAction #FVG #LiquiditySweep #VolumeProfile #TradingView #DayTrading #FuturesTrader #MarketStructure #GoldTrading

03:15

When Trends Disagree, Timing Matters More Than Direction The trend is not one thing One of the most common questions in technical analysis is also one of the most incomplete: “What is the trend?” The problem is that a market rarely has just one trend. A market can be advancing on a monthly chart, declining on a weekly chart, and changing direction again on a daily chart—all at the same time. That is not necessarily a contradiction. It is the normal consequence of observing the same market through different time horizons. A more useful question is: what job should each timeframe perform in the decision process? The current Gold futures chart provides a useful case study. We are looking at GC on a daily chart while calculating the Supertrend indicator independently from monthly, weekly, and daily data. Supertrend uses volatility, typically through Average True Range, to establish a trailing trend threshold that changes sides when the underlying trend condition changes. As captured on the chart, the three timeframes are telling three different stories. The monthly Supertrend remains up. The weekly Supertrend is down. And the daily Supertrend, which was previously up, has just turned down. Instead of trying to decide which one is “correct,” we can give each timeframe a different role. Give each timeframe a job A practical multiple-timeframe framework separates context from timing. The higher timeframe can tell us about the larger environment. The intermediate timeframe can show whether there is pressure developing within that environment. The shorter timeframe can then provide the timing condition used to evaluate a particular scenario. Applied to this Gold case study: The monthly Supertrend provides the broader context: up. The weekly Supertrend provides intermediate directional pressure: down. The daily Supertrend provides the newest timing information: it has just turned down. That combination is more informative than simply labeling Gold bullish or bearish. The fresh daily downside condition is aligned with the weekly trend, which strengthens the case for examining a downside scenario. But both are operating against a monthly trend that remains up. That higher-timeframe disagreement matters. It does not necessarily invalidate a short-term downside scenario. Instead, it can influence how much should reasonably be expected from that scenario. Direction and expectation are different decisions This distinction is important. A trader may identify a valid directional opportunity without expecting a very large move. When the daily and weekly trends point down while the monthly trend remains up, there are at least two competing forces in the analysis. Shorter-term momentum may carry price lower, while the larger trend creates a reason to be less ambitious about how far that decline might extend. This is why multiple-timeframe analysis can be useful for more than deciding direction. It can also help calibrate expectations. If all three Supertrends were pointing down, a trader might evaluate whether there was room for a more extended downside movement. With the monthly Supertrend still pointing up, a nearer technical objective may be more appropriate for an illustrative scenario. In other words, the higher timeframe does not always have to determine the trade direction. Sometimes its most valuable role is determining how aggressively—or conservatively—the shorter-timeframe opportunity should be managed. A trend signal still needs a location There is another important limitation to address. A Supertrend change tells us something about direction and timing, but it does not automatically tell us that the current price is a meaningful entry location. That is why the chart introduces a second condition. Below the current market sits a minor UFO support area around 4,281.2. Instead of treating the new daily downside Supertrend as sufficient by itself, the illustrative scenario waits for price to break below this UFO support. This creates a conditional entry near 4,281.2. The distinction is subtle but important. The trend signal says that conditions have changed. The support break would provide additional evidence that price is actually moving through a level where buyers had previously been able to respond. Until that happens, there is no entry in this case study. This helps separate a setup from a trade. Let market structure define the target The next relevant support identified on the chart sits around 4,115.2. That creates a potential target approximately 166 points below the illustrative 4,281.2 entry. Why stop there rather than assume that a new daily downtrend must produce a much larger decline? Because the monthly Supertrend is still pointing up. The target therefore reflects both sides of the analysis. The daily and weekly conditions provide the rationale for examining the downside, while the monthly condition argues against assuming that the downside must become a major longer-term reversal. This is a reusable principle: higher-timeframe disagreement can be incorporated into target selection rather than treated as a reason to abandon shorter-term analysis altogether. Using Point of Control to define invalidation A target answers only half of the risk-management question. We also need to know what would make the scenario no longer acceptable. For that purpose, the chart uses Point of Control, or POC. In a volume profile, the POC represents the price at which the greatest amount of volume was transacted within the period being measured. It can therefore identify an area where the market previously demonstrated significant acceptance. The current-month and prior-month POCs are both positioned above the proposed entry area. For a downside scenario, that creates a useful structural reference. Rather than placing a stop an arbitrary number of points above the entry, the illustrative stop is positioned beyond this POC structure, around 4,488.8. The reasoning is not that price cannot trade through a POC. It can. Instead, if price breaks the proposed support, activating the downside scenario, and subsequently moves back through the nearby high-volume acceptance area far enough to reach 4,488.8, the original downside thesis has materially weakened. That makes the stop an invalidation level rather than merely a predetermined distance. A coherent setup can still have an imperfect payoff The proposed levels also reveal another useful lesson. An entry around 4,281.2, stop around 4,488.8, and target around 4,115.2 create approximately 207.6 points of initial risk versus 166 points of potential movement toward the target. That is roughly a 0.8-to-1 reward-to-risk relationship. It would be easy to solve that problem cosmetically by selecting a much lower target. But doing so would undermine the logic of the analysis. The reason the target is relatively conservative is precisely because the monthly trend remains up. This illustrates why a technically coherent setup and an attractive payoff profile are not automatically the same thing. The analysis should determine meaningful levels first. Risk criteria can then determine whether the resulting scenario is suitable for a particular trading plan. If a trading plan requires a higher reward-to-risk threshold, the appropriate response may simply be to pass on the scenario, wait for a different entry, or require additional confirmation. Moving technical levels merely to manufacture a preferred ratio reverses the analytical process. Contract size changes the dollars, not the framework The same Gold price analysis can be considered through several CME contract sizes. GC represents 100 troy ounces of Gold. Micro Gold futures, MGC, represent 10 troy ounces, or one-tenth of GC. The 1-Ounce Gold futures contract, 1OZ, represents one troy ounce, or one-hundredth of GC. GC and MGC use a minimum price fluctuation of $0.10 per troy ounce, while 1OZ trades in $0.25 increments. That scaling makes position size an important part of the case study. Using the approximate 207.6-point distance between the illustrative entry and stop, the corresponding price risk before commissions, slippage, or gaps would be about $20,760 for one GC contract, $2,076 for one MGC contract, and approximately $207.60 for one 1OZ contract. Actual orders must, of course, conform to each contract's permitted tick increments. The approximately 166-point distance from entry to target translates to about $16,600 for GC, $1,660 for MGC, and $166 for 1OZ. These figures also demonstrate why margin and trade risk should never be confused. The current margin amounts are approximately $22,000 for GC, $2,200 for MGC, and $220 for 1OZ. Margin requirements can change, and the amount required to establish or maintain a futures position is not a limit on how much that position can lose. The stop distance, contract size, liquidity, possible gaps, and account-level risk limits remain separate considerations. When trends disagree, ask better questions Multiple timeframes do not need to agree before they become useful. The monthly trend can define the broader context. The weekly trend can reveal intermediate pressure. The daily trend can provide timing. Support can determine whether the signal has reached a meaningful location. POC can help establish structural invalidation. And the relationship among those elements can determine whether expectations should be aggressive or conservative. That leads to a more useful sequence than simply asking whether a market is bullish or bearish: What is the larger context? What has changed on the trading timeframe? Has price reached or broken a meaningful level? Where would the scenario become invalid? How far is it reasonable to expect the move to travel given the higher-timeframe condition? In this Gold example, the monthly, weekly, and daily Supertrends disagree—but that disagreement is exactly what makes the analysis educational. Direction is only one part of the decision. Timing, location, expectation, and risk determine what can actually be done with it. Data Consideration When charting futures, the data provided could be delayed. Traders working with the ticker symbols discussed in this idea may prefer to use CME Group real-time data plan on TradingView: www.tradingview.com - This consideration is particularly important for shorter-term traders, whereas it may be less critical for those focused on longer-term trading strategies. General Disclaimer The trade ideas presented herein are solely for illustrative purposes forming a part of a case study intended to demonstrate key principles in risk management within the context of the specific market scenarios discussed. These ideas are not to be interpreted as investment recommendations or financial advice. They do not endorse or promote any specific trading strategies, financial products, or services. The information provided is based on data believed to be reliable; however, its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. Trading in financial markets involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. Each individual should conduct their own research and consult with professional financial advisors before making any investment decisions. The author or publisher of this content bears no responsibility for any actions taken based on the information provided or for any resultant financial or other losses.

GOLD: If The Fed Hikes The Rate, Look For SELLS!In this Weekly Market Forecast, we will analyze Gold for the week of Sep 14 - 18th. Gold is leaning bearish to neutral in the short term heading into this week, as rising expectations for a Federal Reserve interest rate hike place strong downward pressure on the non-yielding metal. The market closed the previous week at $4,408.90 per ounce, marking its third consecutive weekly decline. My Plan: Wait for the Daily +FVG to be either respected or disrespected. This will signal the bias for this market. Enjoy! May profits be upon you. Leave any questions or comments in the comment section. I appreciate any feedback from my viewers! Like and/or subscribe if you want more accurate analysis. Thank you so much! Disclaimer: I do not provide personal investment advice and I am not a qualified licensed investment advisor. All information found here, including any ideas, opinions, views, predictions, forecasts, commentaries, suggestions, expressed or implied herein, are for informational, entertainment or educational purposes only and should not be construed as personal investment advice. While the information provided is believed to be accurate, it may include errors or inaccuracies. I will not and cannot be held liable for any actions you take as a result of anything you read here. Conduct your own due diligence, or consult a licensed financial advisor or broker before making any and all investment decisions. Any investments, trades, speculations, or decisions made on the basis of any information found on this channel, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise.

16:00

Silver Crude and news not letting us make any positional view. My positional view was for bull side but I will not trade in range of 230000 to 245000 any breakout or breakdown will give me clear direction.

06:49

Gold - $4800 now possible Gold futures (1D) are testing a major decision point at $4,456, where two pitchfork structures overlap (U-MLH 1/4 Confluence). - Red Pitchfork (Descending): Defines the macro corrective channel from the Feb/March highs. Price is testing the upper boundary line ($4,450-$4,500), which acts as critical overhead resistance. - White Pitchfork (Ascending): Defines the recovery trend from the July swing low ($3,950). Price has reached the upper quarter median line (U-MLH 1/4). PITCHFORK SCENARIOS & RULE #1 - Bull Case (Rule #1 Continuation): A daily close above the $4,500 confluence zone clears the red channel. Following Pitchfork Rule #1, price will target the White Centerline (CL), currently projected near $4,850-$4,900. Because of the upward angle of the white CL, this target moves higher each day price moves forward. - Bear Case (Confluence Rejection): A failure to break $4,500 signals a rejection off resistance. The downside target becomes the White L-MLH around $4,150-$4,200 as dynamic support. A break below $4,150 invalidates the white pitchfork and opens risk toward $3,750. KEY LEVELS TO WATCH - Immediate Resistance: $4,450 - $4,500 - Upside Target (White CL): $4,850+ - Key Support (White L-MLH): $4,150 - $4,200

**Gold: External Expansion Toward 1.414** After reaching our POI, Gold delivered the expected bullish reaction. During the move toward the POI, the market formed a key imbalance. This area now remains the main zone to watch for a possible short-term rebalance and support. The current structure indicates that the asset is developing an external expansion. A temporary pullback into the key imbalance is still possible and would remain consistent with the bullish scenario. As long as this area holds, my main target is the Fibonacci **1.414 level**, located near **4535**. This is where I plan to take 100% of the profit. A decisive loss of the key imbalance would require a reassessment of the scenario. **We trust Fibonacci.** This is my personal market view, not financial advice.

by Fibonacci_Code

Gold (GC) Analysis, Key-Zones, Setup for Fri (Sep 18)Bias: Gold settled Thursday at 4,399.7 on the December contract, up 12.2 points or 0.28 percent, and the settlement hides a genuine reversal session. December opened at 4,301.4, already 86.1 points or 1.96 percent beneath the prior settlement of 4,387.5, printed a low of 4,294.5 and a high of 4,423.3, 3.00 percent above that low, and settled at 4,399.7, 81.7 percent of the way up a 128.8 point range. A market that gaps two percent lower on a hawkish central bank and closes green has absorbed the news. The gap itself was mechanical: the Federal Reserve raised rates 25 basis points to 3.75 to 4.00 percent on Wednesday, the first increase since July 2023, unanimously, with projections showing twelve of eighteen officials expecting one further increase this year and no cut next year. Thursday's ten-year inflation-protected auction at 1:00 PM ET then cleared at a 2.653 percent high yield against 2.438 percent previously, a direct and measurable rise in the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset. The dollar index sat near 100.238 in evening trade after the 04:00 PM ET equity close, easing 0.10 percent but holding nearly all of its post-decision gains after setting a fresh one-and-a-half month high. What the recovery could not do is clear resistance: the advance stalled at 4,423.3 and settled 10.4 points beneath the 100-day average at 4,410.1, having pierced it intraday without holding it. Structurally the metal is a completed downtrend searching for a base at a neutral reading, trading 23.90 percent below its 52-week high of 5,781.8, beneath its 20-day, 100-day and 200-day averages but above its 5-day and 50-day, with a 14-day directional index of just 16.66 and positive direction 15.98 against negative direction 17.16, which is an absence of trend rather than a downtrend. The multi-indicator composite reads 16 percent sell at minimum strength with its trend component on hold, matching the readings on both equity index contracts. The 14-day stochastic %K at 32.00 percent sits in the lower part of its range. Bias is lower while 4,450 caps the bounce, with the 4,410 area the decision line, and the 9:15 AM ET data window the session's first identifiable catalyst, with Federal Reserve commentary carried on the news-feed calendar at 9:30 AM ET and unconfirmed against a primary source following it. Resistance: - 4,755.0 13-week and 1-month high, the lower high that defines the current swing sequence - 4,579.3 Pivot R3, extended mechanical objective beyond one and a half average ranges - 4,501.3 Pivot R2, converging with the 20-day average within 11.3 points - 4,490.0 20-day moving average, first level whose recovery changes the structural read - 4,450.5 Pivot R1, invalidation reference for the primary setup - 4,423.3 session high, upper edge of the supply band - 4,410.1 100-day moving average, nearest resistance of any kind and the decision line Support: - 4,387.5 prior settlement, the level the reopened session is trading beneath - 4,372.5 Pivot Point, converging with the 5-day average at 4,371.1 within 1.4 points - 4,342.0 50-day moving average - 4,321.7 Pivot S1, second objective of the primary setup - 4,294.5 session low, 6.9 points beneath a two percent gap-down open, with the settlement 105.2 points above it - 4,273.3 1-month low, 21.2 points beneath Thursday's low, the pair forming base evidence - 4,243.7 Pivot S2, first mechanical objective beneath the one-month low - 4,192.9 Pivot S3, deepest level with mechanical basis for the session Primary Setup: SHORT GC from the 4,410 to 4,425 supply band on a retest of the area where Thursday's recovery stalled, with the thesis resting on a bounce that reached the 100-day average and the session high without settling above either while the real-rate direction moved decisively against the metal. Stop 4,455, placed above Pivot R1 at 4,450.5, since a settlement through that level would mean the reversal bar is extending rather than stalling. Targets at 4,372 first, where the Pivot Point and the 5-day average converge within 1.4 points, 4,322 second at Pivot S1, and 4,295 third at Thursday's session low if momentum extends through the second target. The 14-day average true range is 105.2 points, or 2.39 percent of settlement, and the position carries half the normal allocation given a counter-trend entry ahead of a tentatively timed overnight central bank decision and a September quarterly expiration session, carried in the options positioning data rather than a verified calendar and unconfirmed, whose dollar flows can move the metal without conveying direction. The entry band sits above the settlement, so the setup requires strength before it activates rather than weakness. Pricing is likely to be disorderly around the 9:15 AM ET industrial production release and the Federal Reserve commentary from Bowman and Schmid carried on the news-feed calendar at 9:30 AM ET and 11:45 AM ET, both unconfirmed against a primary source. Gold settles at 1:30 PM ET, so the metal's session is decided ahead of the equity close. A decisive settlement above 4,450.5 negates the short case and puts the 20-day average at 4,490.0 and Pivot R2 at 4,501.3 in play. The overnight Bank of Japan decision, carried on the news-feed calendar at 11:30 PM ET on a tentative statement time and unconfirmed against a primary source, matters more to this metal than it appears, since a second major central bank tightening in the same week reinforces the global real-rate direction that has driven gold 23.90 percent below its 52-week high. Friday is a decision session rather than a trend session for gold, and the decision is whether Thursday's reversal extends or stalls. The 14-day average true range is 105.2 points, or 2.39 percent of the settlement, and Thursday's 128.8 point range exceeded that average by 23.6 points. A one average-true-range day from the settlement spans 4,294.5 to 4,504.9, which puts Thursday's session low almost exactly on the lower bound and shows how much of a normal day's distance the recovery has already consumed.