If you invested 100.000 in George Soros' fund in 1969, it would have grown to 353 million in 1989. Not bad...
Anyone else think Elliot Wave is a bunch of hooey?
- Thread starter swtrader
- Start date
If you invested 100.000 in George Soros' fund in 1969, it would have grown to 353 million in 1989. Not bad...
Quote from harrytrader:
Since there seem to a problem in the other thread I answer here :
"I said that IN THE HISTORY OF THE HURST EXPONENT THE "LONG TERM MEMORY EFFECT" which is A SCIENTIFIC TERM IN CHAOS THEORY has been discovered on the NILE (you seem to ignore that
"LONG TERM MEMORY EFFECT" is an expression that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PSYCHOLOGY in science !)
Then the SAME "LONG TERM MEMORY EFFECT" has been discovered by MANDELBROTT in STOCK MARKET and since that kind of effect has nothing to do with psychology as for the Nile I don't see where you can pretend that this effect is obligatory due to the psychology of crowd in stock market !!! There can be other reason NOTABLY THE INVENTORIES OF MARKET MAKERS or other BIG PLAYERS which indeed have much TO DO WITH FLOW OF MONEY THAT CAN CREATE THIS "LONG TERM MEMORY EFFECT" !
If you don't know that SUPPLY AND DEMAND is about FLOW OF MONEY, well I'm sorry you are lacking the basics !
--------------------
Quote from ArchAngel
Now you're comparing the stock market to the ebb and flow of the Nile??? What's next? Phase of the Moon??
You're so far out in the ozone and caught up in your mystical "universal law" crap that your unable to see the obvious disconnect with reality.
Beam me up Scotty!!
Quote from harrytrader:
Since I talk about long term memory effect I will comment on the subject. It is not linked with psychology per se. Long term memory effect is about dependancy on average. The husrt exponent and long term memory effect was first discovered about the Nile. As far as I know the Nile has no brain and I don't see that people would influence the levels of the Nile. As in stock market it is rather the inventory of big market makers like the Nile level that explain this effect than so called psy of crowd ! "
since i am on such a drunken, honest rampage... i will continue, perhaps at your expense...
while I am what would generaly be called a political 'conservative' i have much objection to the theoretical foundation of archangels political orientation, as i was very much in the 'republicans for kerry' boat.....
BUT i do very much agree with archangels disapproval of what is formaly called the 'unity of method' theory, that is: the same principals and laws that apply to natural science, generaly also apply to social science.....which coined by karl popper, was the 'unity of method'....i conceed that human beings can NOT be quantified as can the natural sciences, which consist of single celled organisms and the like, but rather cognisant beings that are prone to emotional stumili...this is the reason for the general failure that the social sciences have been since their inception..... the arrogant attempt to quantify humanity and fit it into a nice neat little equation....it just donsent work, and never will, so i guess you would call my social/economic theory rather sorosesque, although my political views differ from his in many fundamental ways......but i think the gist is this.....that quants can hope for temporal success at best....as the brief history of that community has shown.....and that the only 'survivors' of this industry are those that accept the reflexive nature of humanity and reject the academic's attepmt to quantify human behavior, and continualy commit themselves to understanding the current evolutionary phase of mkt.....so in a word.....YES....elliot wave IS a bunch of hooey, rather voodoo, that has NO real grounding in reality......
Elliott is a structure, and from structure can be constructed a disciplined approach. That trading discilpline could have value even if the structure does represent not an underlying truth.
On the other hand, teach a computer Elliott and it will find thousands of valid wave counts without breaking any "rules," a fact that is inconvenient for its proponents.
Chris Carolan
On the other hand, teach a computer Elliott and it will find thousands of valid wave counts without breaking any "rules," a fact that is inconvenient for its proponents.
Chris Carolan
OK, but since the 80sPrechter has been calling for a big crash and a mega bearmarket. He has been wrong until now.
I use a 5 wave count all the time, esp. for intraday. See attached AAPL chart. Perfect 5 waves and then pull back to end of wave 4.
I mostly eyeball it. The wave 5 is always the most irrational one.
BTW that was the top intraday - AAPL drifted much lower all day.
the big move up is the start of the count,
I mostly eyeball it. The wave 5 is always the most irrational one.
BTW that was the top intraday - AAPL drifted much lower all day.
the big move up is the start of the count,
EW theory is much like the Bush Doctrine/foreign policy. Go on a mere whim. If everything pans out, take any and all credit for the success/ profitable trade. If not, tell people that it's all their fault and that they didn't read or count the waves right or some other nonsense, thus invalidating anything and everything. In another words. biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Only an idiot would take this TA technique seriously.
I really believe that there is something to EW theory. The problem with it to me is that the minor trends are "violated" all the time (they were part of some other structure, either forming or formed.)
I think the key to it for average traders is to use it only in relation to the DOW theory that it "sits between." But that is high speculation...
nitro
I think the key to it for average traders is to use it only in relation to the DOW theory that it "sits between." But that is high speculation...
nitro
There's an interesting write up on the merits of technical analysis below:
"Making Sense Of The Chaos"
http://www.kerryonworld.com
"Making Sense Of The Chaos"
http://www.kerryonworld.com