Anyone else think Elliot Wave is a bunch of hooey?

To growltiger directly and others indirectly:

To answer your question specifically on MTPredictor and other ongoing (and correct!) EW queries...

I posted a response on p.9 of this thread, titled 'Elliott Wave any good?' and also was authorised by Baron to reply on the thread 'elwave 7.1 any comments' about hindsight EW programs.

All my posts are by 'hornet, Tony Beckwith, MTPredictor Ltd', to avoid any misunderstanding.

We continue to believe that conventional EW is too complex and changeable to trade. We use isolated parts of EW for risk and reward (decision points) assessment in clear trading, geared to a strong Profit Factor through avg. profits far in excess of avg. losses.

We are still considering a site sponsorship offer from Baron, so, for now, I must end here!

Thanks folks

hornet
Tony Beckwith
MTPredictor Ltd.
 
I have always repeated again again that the Golden ratio of 0.62 is real and not due to PSYCHOLOGY OF CROWD, it is a MATHEMATICAL CONVERGENCE and this is confirmed by this article in news scientists:

"Guido Caldarelli of Manchester University and his colleagues have created a computer program that simulates speculators trading with the aim of increasing their own wealth. Initially, stocks are randomly priced and traders buy at random. From then on, they buy and sell simply according to recent price history. After each buying round, the trader with least capital is wiped out and replaced by a newcomer.

As the simulation progresses, a complex pattern of peaks and troughs in the price of each stock emerges. The fluctuations appear to have a "fractal" structure—the shape of the fluctuations is the same, regardless of the timescale considered. Caldarelli has calculated the Hurst exponent of this fractal pattern, a measure that characterises its dimensions. The value is 0.62—just 0.03 short of a value published in 1995 for real stock market data (Nature, vol 376, p 46).
"

Quote from harrytrader:

Poor steve46 as always he is retarded ! Last time he pretended that according to "his" theory everything tends towards normal law which is completely false as I answered that only a sum of distributions with FINITE MEAN AND VARIANCE do so and as for STOCK MARKET many researchers doubt that's why there are so many modelisations using Levy's distribution which has no variance and no mean.

And now he pretends that garch is a good model laughable even ARFIMA which is an improvment is not usable in practice and I have already pinpointed this here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=436861&highlight=garch#post436861
Re: Econometrics and practice

The very basic reason why stock market time series are reputed to be one of the most difficult arena of forecast is because these classical time series techniques don't work, mathematically these techniques are based on autocorrelation of errors since these autocorrelations are very low in stock market time series they are not worth at least used in traditional way. Now low autocorrelation is not equivalent to independancy, it has been showned for a long time since Mandelbrott that the Market exhibits "long term memory effect" so that the latest kind of stochastic model taking into account that effect is ARFIMA's model. But the performance still is poor. All in all I say it is an error to use stochastic models to do market's forecast because only a deterministic model can do it (ie mine of course ), the problem is to find it and the reason that researchers didn't find it is because they try to extract knowledge from pure datas which is an idiocy from paradigm point of view because the model's knowledge is transcendant to the datas that is to say you cannot deduce it from the datas alone but only if you have the idea of how market really works or you will play with datas and stochastic models much like a monkey see:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&threadid=28614

ANNs (Neural Net): A Little Knowledge Can Be A Dangerous Thing
http://www.secondmoment.org/articles/ann.php

ANNs: A Little Knowledge Can Be A Dangerous Thing
Posted by Dr. Halbert White



Quote from DT-waw:

I've posted similar questions on Wilmott forum, but I didn't get what I wanted. Maybe ET'ers will know more.

Do you know of any trading system (excl. arbitrage) and it's historical hypothetical or real performance on most popular markets (futures, stocks, forex; in 1-30 min. intervals) based on GARCH, ARIMA, Bayesian analysis, Kalman filtering? I wonder whether these tools can outperform classic technical analysis tools. There's a lot of academic research on these models, however their robustness in the real trading isn't described.

I found some research by Olsen http://www.olsen.ch/research/workin...319_real-r1.pdf but it only deals with FX 1990-1996 and trading costs aren't specified. Performance is poor when compared to equity futures systems. Somewhere on the internet I found that Mr. Pierre Lequeux made performance analysis on Dax and Nikkei, but I can't find these papers via google, many pdf's are written in french.

When academic people apply econometric methods into the financial data series, their conclusions are always related to volatility or many statistical properties. I would like to see simple figures like P&L, drawdowns, Sharpe ratio, profit factor...

__________________
More...
 
Yeah, yeah.
The length of each of the 3 digits of each finger are in sequence from longest to shortest the "Golden ratio of 0.62" of the preceding one.

So what?

Anyone else think Elliot Wave is a bunch of hooey?
Yes, I do.
 
Quote from Cheese:

Yeah, yeah.
The length of each of the 3 digits of each finger are in sequence from longest to shortest the "Golden ratio of 0.62" of the preceding one.

So what?

Anyone else think Elliot Wave is a bunch of hooey?
Yes, I do.
More...

Yeah yeah go and eat your cheese if you don't know how to read newscientist's article:

"Guido Caldarelli of Manchester University and his colleagues have created a computer program that simulates speculators trading with the aim of increasing their own wealth. Initially, stocks are randomly priced and traders buy at random. From then on, they buy and sell simply according to recent price history. After each buying round, the trader with least capital is wiped out and replaced by a newcomer.

As the simulation progresses, a complex pattern of peaks and troughs in the price of each stock emerges. The fluctuations appear to have a "fractal" structure—the shape of the fluctuations is the same, regardless of the timescale considered. Caldarelli has calculated the <font color=RED>Hurst exponent of this fractal pattern</font>, a measure that characterises its dimensions. <font color=RED>The value is 0.62</font>—just 0.03 short of a value published in 1995 for real stock market data (Nature, vol 376, p 46).
"
 
Harrytrader go to the seashore and let the sea wash over you little tootsies .. that little wave will be as real and meaningful as any Elliot Wave is ever going to get, buddy!
 
You have very little sense of what the word meaning means by itself so I don't think I would take your advise seriously.

At least you are the proof of the existence of an incredible specimen of denial even in front of scientific facts.

Quote from Cheese:

Harrytrader go to the seashore and let the sea wash over you little tootsies .. that little wave will be as real and meaningful as any Elliot Wave is ever going to get, buddy!
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top