WhitmanTrading

How to Use Fibonacci Retracement

To use Fibonacci retracement, pick a swing high and swing low you can defend, draw the tool between them, and treat the resulting levels as places to look for a reaction rather than as reasons to trade. The levels are fixed percentages — the judgement is entirely in which swing you selected.

The tool divides a move you selected into fixed percentages. Everything contentious about it lives in the word “selected”, and almost none of the discussion is about that.

Before you start

A swing you can point at, with a high and a low you would defend to someone else. If the swing is ambiguous, every level derived from it is ambiguous by the same amount.

A decision about which levels you use, made before the tool is drawn. Three levels is a framework; seven levels guarantees price is always near one.

The instrument’s ordinary bar range, so a reaction can be told apart from noise. On this site’s shared series the median bar range is 0.493 and the ninetieth percentile is 1.101.

The steps

1. Identify one swing and write down its two ends

A candlestick chart with a clear swing high and low marked.
The swing is the decision; the levels are arithmetic. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The high and the low of a move that is obvious enough that someone else would pick the same two points. Write the prices down before drawing anything.

2. Draw from the start of the move to the end of it

The first half of a price series with a measured move.
Low to high in an uptrend, high to low in a downtrend. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

In an uptrend, low to high. In a downtrend, high to low. Reversing the direction produces a different set of numbers from the same two prices.

3. Use three levels and hide the rest

A section of the price series with a small set of levels.
Fewer levels means fewer places price is always near. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The 38.2, 50 and 61.8 lines are the conventional three. Adding more does not add information; it adds places for price to be near, which makes the tool unfalsifiable.

4. Look for confluence before treating a level as real

A window of price bars where two references coincide.
A level worth anything coincides with something structural. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

A retracement level sitting on a prior high, a moving average or a session level is a different event from one sitting in open space. The confluence is what carries the weight.

5. Wait for a reaction rather than anticipating one

The second half of a price series reacting at a level.
The reaction is the evidence, not the level. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

Price reaching a level is not information. Price reaching it and then rejecting it over 2 or 3 bars is, and waiting costs a little of the move in exchange for evidence.

6. Refuse to redraw the swing after price moves

A range-bound stretch with a fixed reference held.
Redrawing until it fits is fitting the tool to the answer. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

If the levels did not hold, the answer is that they did not hold. Redrawing from a different swing until one lines up produces a tool that has never once been wrong, which is the same as useless.

7. Take the stop beyond the swing, not beyond the level

A long-horizon view with an invalidation point marked.
The swing low is structural; the level is arithmetic. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The 61.8 line is a percentage. The swing low is a price where something happened. Put the stop beyond the structural point and let the distance set the size.

How to tell it worked

You can name the two prices the tool was drawn from without looking. If you cannot, the swing was not deliberate.

The number of levels displayed is 3. More than that and the tool cannot be wrong.

No swing was redrawn after price reached a level — 0 times across the period. Redrawing is the tell that the tool is being fitted to the answer.

And every entry waited at least 2 bars for a reaction before being taken, with a non-Fibonacci reason — a structure, a prior level, a session boundary — sitting at the same price.

What it does not claim

A candlestick chart annotated with the round-trip cost of a switch.
Every level traded costs a round trip. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The ratios are not derived from anything about markets. They come from a numerical sequence, and the claim that price respects them is empirical rather than mathematical — which means it has to earn its keep against the cost of testing it.

On this site’s shared series a round trip measures about 2% of the median bar range of 0.493, and a strategy trading seven levels on every swing pays that repeatedly. The figures are in research/series-measurements.json.

A candlestick chart with a volume histogram beneath it.
And a thin market produces swings nobody is defending. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

A swing formed on very little activity is a weak reference. The high and the low were set by a handful of participants, so the move being divided up was not a move many people took part in.

Why the swing choice matters so much

A candlestick series with several gaps, the largest of them marked.
A gap changes which swing looks obvious. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

Two swings that both look reasonable produce levels several bar-ranges apart. On this site’s series that spread is larger than the median bar itself, so the disagreement between two defensible drawings is bigger than the thing being measured.

Which is why the tool is a framework rather than a measurement. It organises a view you already had; it does not supply one.

The original data

Of the 24,971 unique videos in research/search-study-corpus.jsonl, 376 mention this tool in the title, at a median of 8,242 views across 301 channels — and 50% of those titles are instruction-shaped. The relative strength index appears in 154 instruction-shaped titles at 4,398 and support and resistance in 41 at 51,611. The counts come from site/corpus_count.py and site/rank_howto.py, both deduplicating by video id.

A stretch of price bars cut short at a decision point.
It bounced at 61.8. Proof it works? Illustrative chart - not real market data.

376 videos across 301 channels is the widest coverage of any tool measured on this site. Almost nothing else in the corpus is taught by that many separate people, and the audience per video is mid-range — which is what a universally taught, rarely questioned technique looks like in data.

The answer to the question on that chart is that one bounce is not evidence. Seven levels on every swing means something is always nearby, and confirming afterwards which one price reacted at is selecting the winner after the race.

When it fails

The failure is a tool redrawn until it fits, and it never feels dishonest. Price ignores the levels, a different swing is selected — equally defensible on its own terms — and the new levels line up beautifully with what already happened. Repeated a few times, the tool has an unbroken record and has never made a prediction, because the input was chosen after the outcome was visible.

The second failure is displaying every level. Price is then always near one.

A third is trading a level with no confluence. The arithmetic alone carries no weight.

A fourth is placing the stop just beyond a level. It is a percentage, not a price anyone defended.

A fifth is drawing on an ambiguous swing. The ambiguity propagates into every level.

And a sixth is anticipating the reaction. Reaching the level is not the evidence.

Fibonacci covers where the ratios come from and what they do not claim. Fibonacci extension is the same tool pointed at targets rather than pullbacks. And retracement is the move itself, independent of any tool.

What I actually do

The test I apply is whether I would draw the same swing tomorrow without seeing today’s levels. If the answer is no, the swing was chosen because of where the levels landed, which means the tool measured my preference rather than the market. That test disqualifies most of the fibs I have ever drawn.

— Michael Whitman

This page is educational, not financial advice. Test every idea on your own charts before risking money.