Anyone else think Elliot Wave is a bunch of hooey?

[ArchAngel]

Quote from mmm:
Has anyone here quantifiably and rigorously backtested EW?

Without doing such a test, I don' t think anyone can make any conclusion about the usability of EW.

If you've ever seen EW software in action, you'd know there's no way to backtest it - in effect, the whole EW process is a perpetual backtest until it finally determines the "correct count" in hindsight.

For EWers, the method is flawless - they just didn't have the right count (from the hundreds or thousands possible at any given point in time). The method's perfect. It's their having used the wrong count that's the reason their prediction was completely wrong.

After the fact, they can always backward apply the "right" count.

The whole process is BS.

 

[OneHipCat]

It's somewhat refreshing to see that the majority of posts in this thread are cynical towards EW theory, considering it's broad exceptance and the knowledge that many "prominent" analysts/traders believe in the theory e.g. Jack Schwager and PTJ.

Most amateur traders put blind faith in all kinds of technical analysis because fundamental analysis requires a more vigorous understanding of the underlying principles, where else technical analysis can be more subjective; i.e. anyone can draw a bunch of lines on a chart and make a forecast.

 

[vox_lucidus]

what ?? are you serious?? you think you have to master something before having an opinion of it?? you can be familiar with the theoretical foundation of the approach, and all the shit youare talking about is absolute hogwash as well (econophysics etc) what these pseudo academic morons DONT understand is that humanity IS NOT a mathmatical model, and can be studies as can physics, we are thinking participants and notsingle cell organisms who thoughtlesly do things because we are molecularly destined to do so as IS the case in physics and the natural sciences......this has been the CONTINUAL problem of the social sciences whereby the texboook thinking idiots refuse toaccept this, the INTELLECTUALLY INBRED idiots like harrytrader still havent accepted/realised this....as George Soros has detailed in his writtings "The Burden od Consciousness" and "The Alchemy of Finance" but idots like harrytrader wont die easy as this would be an insurmountable blow to their pride, it just kills me though that they would have the chutzpa to argue with the likes of GEORGE SOROS, regarding these thories.......as again he details in his writtings......

Quote from harrytrader:

A moving average or any other stochastic indicator or filtering also gives a bias. And if you think that market is roughly random then there are just the same kind of non-sense. Those who pretend that these indicators are more "scientific" have a litle sense of what "scientific" means.
A little knowledge is dangerous: if you don't master Elliott then don't pretend to judge at least when there are now serious scientific clues about some degree of validity :

Remind of this paper from Scientists Sornette and Bouchaud - Bouchaud is a laureate of IBM scientific young physics researchers specialised in "econophysics" (and my own model confirms theirs, also the advantage of my model contrary to elliott theory doesn't introduce AD HOC any fib ratio that's why I could really prove that these ratios are real and not pure illusions since they are the consequences of something more profound which is of economical nature and not psychological one contrary to what prechter affirms).

<IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=419012>

 

[vox_lucidus]

keyword: folklore

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from OneHipCat:

. . . Most amateur traders put blind faith in all kinds of technical analysis because fundamental analysis requires a more vigorous understanding of the underlying principles, where else technical analysis can be more subjective; i.e. anyone can draw a bunch of lines on a chart and make a forecast.

I want someone to fundamentally analyze the S&P. Let's see that would take individual analysis (personal of course because using outside sources would currupt the data) of each company in the S&P and then one must build an averging model to instantainiously apply it to the Market for any chance of accuracy (considering all the data collected on all those companys were flawless and time sensative) . . . [Fundamental Market Analysis is as perfect as the balance sheets of Enron, WorldCom, KMART, Tyco . . . get my point]

 

[marketsurfer]

there is but one definitive work on elliott wave--- glen nealy's -"mastering elliott wave"-- a masterpiece.

paul tudor jones and his chief technical guy peter borish used some aspects of elliott wave to corectly call and trade the 1987 crash. those who speak ill of that which they know nothing about are doomed in this game.

surfer

 

[OneHipCat]

Quote from ProfLogic:

I want someone to fundamentally analyze the S&P. Let's see that would take individual analysis (personal of course because using outside sources would currupt the data) of each company in the S&P and then one must build an averging model to instantainiously apply it to the Market for any chance of accuracy (considering all the data collected on all those companys were flawless and time sensative) . . . [Fundamental Market Analysis is as perfect as the balance sheets of Enron, WorldCom, KMART, Tyco . . . get my point]

Talk about using 500 stones to kill one bird, ever heard of macroeconomic analysis? Many successful hedge funds employ this strategy including Soros Fund Management, Caxton Associates and Tudor Investment Corp.

The broader market has the largest impact on the price of an individual stock, followed by the sector, then the microeconomic fundamentals of the company itself. Ergo, to make market bets, an analysis of interest rate direction, geopoliticals, economic trends etc is vastly more crucial then the earnings potential of Ebay.

 

[ProfLogic]

Quote from OneHipCat:

Talk about using 500 stones to kill one bird, ever heard of macroeconomic analysis? Many successful hedge funds employ this strategy including Soros Fund Management, Caxton Associates and Tudor Investment Corp.

The broader market has the largest impact on the price of an individual stock, followed by the sector, then the microeconomic fundamentals of the company itself. Ergo, to make market bets, an analysis of interest rate direction, geopoliticals, economic trends etc is vastly more crucial then the earnings potential of Ebay.

ever heard of macroeconomic analysis? - Yes, debunked it as too broad and unfocused for the individual trader or investor and too inconsistent in today's trading environment.

There are Private Hedge Funds out there that only operate on family money, return over 100% a year and are traded just a few days a month by the in house traders. No greed there. Will you ever see an article wriiten on their stratagies . . . not on your life. Why, because they don't need any outside investment.

Large corporate investors don't have billions of dollars because they earned it from their investments . . . please! Here's a common sense qusetion for you. If old George or Paul had the ability to consistently produce profits in any Market environment . . . would they need investors?

I appreciate those funds though like I do all the varible traders using everything from fundamental analysis to Gann, EW, FIB (well named) and any other method that is discretionary, arbitrary and inconsistent. As long as there are traders willing to trust everyone but themselve this Market environment will flurish. God forbid someone ever takes a fresh untainted approach to Market analysis and figures out that there is perfect consistency in it. If that would happen we would be in a world of hurt.

 

[Wallace]

I don't mind having a go on the Nasdaq Weekly – don't have S&P, have DJIA, timeframe should be the same.

 

[OneHipCat]

Quote from ProfLogic:


There are Private Hedge Funds out there that only operate on family money, return over 100% a year and are traded just a few days a month by the in house traders. No greed there. Will you ever see an article wriiten on their stratagies . . . not on your life. Why, because they don't need any outside investment.

Large corporate investors don't have billions of dollars because they earned it from their investments . . . please! Here's a common sense qusetion for you. If old George or Paul had the ability to consistently produce profits in any Market environment . . . would they need investors?

I've never heard of any phantom hedge funds before but I pose rhetorical question for you.

On a 1$ Bln account, would you rather earn 50% of profits, a 2% (of assets) management fee and ZERO downside risks OR just 100% of profits with ALL of the downside risk.