fibo experts â which fibo ?
- Thread starter Wallace
- Start date
'
Well, thanks for finally providing some proof, but, I make money using them, it works for me, and I know of others who use them profitably. Enough people believe that they work so they have become a self-fufililng prophecy I guess, but hey, if we can profit from them, that's all that matters. Good luck on your journey to prove that Fibs don't work. Maybe you can take the opposite side of the "fib level trades", if they don't work, you should make millions.
They don't work for anyone. If someone buys/sells retracements to profit, it has nothing to do with Fib levels. It has to do with the philosophy of buying/selling retracements. That has been the point of all studies.
Fib traders delude themselves into thinking something like 31.8% is any better than 25%. The illusion is, that Fib levels have any particular additive value.
When someone obsessively attacks someone else's trading method ... what does it tell you about the attacker?
Well put Kiwi!
'Magic Numbers in the Dow' ought to be titled 'Magic Manipulation of Data'
my emphasis
"Our conclusion must be that there is no significant difference between the b]frequencies[/b]
with which price and time ratios occur in cycles in the Dow Jones Industrial Average,
and frequencies which we would expect to occur at random in such a time series."
the authors aren't evaluating the use of the Fibonacci ratio or number series but looking for the
'philosopher's stone' of the financial world âcycles and frequencies. Oh if only there were cycles !
given their bibliography runs to 7.5 pages, one can only imagine how much 'research' money and
salary had to be provided to pay for all that reading, computer time was probably $3.58
p 14 " . . . in the sense that it can be clearly formulated in numeric terms, and is potentially testable.
Provided, that is, that we can identify the peaks and troughs . . . "
" . . . since we are interested in identifying cycles . . . "
p 14/15 "A technical analyst would do this by eyeballing the chart, and marking trends with a ruler,
or the line drawing tool on some software package. We need a more systematic method that ensures
turning points are identified in a consistent way throughout the time series . . . "
"Even this simple approach requires some subjective judgement . . . "
pps 17 thru 25 pretty well describes how 'scientists' manipulate data in order to give proof to
their formula/premise or the means to apply their algorythms; p 22 describes how the authors
manipulated the data.
After what ? 15, 20 years of schooling 'scientists' have to 'study' something or they wouldn't get
paid, and is why 'financially oriented 'research'' may potentially result in fat consultantcy fees, the
self-defeating 'it doesn't work' 'proofs' are easy to create (?) given the amount of manipulation done
by the 'scientific expert'
p 28/31 proving the validity of the manipulation â and they tut! tut! tut! have the temerity to admit it !
"It is of course possible that our results are an artefact of the parameters of our testing procedure."
isn't that what's called a disclaimer ? and
"None of these sensitivity tests undermine our basic, negative, results." congratulations on obtaining the negative
such 'proofs' are the pre-sale edge to the 'now if you'll look at the system we've designed . . . '
my emphasis
"Our conclusion must be that there is no significant difference between the b]frequencies[/b]
with which price and time ratios occur in cycles in the Dow Jones Industrial Average,
and frequencies which we would expect to occur at random in such a time series."
the authors aren't evaluating the use of the Fibonacci ratio or number series but looking for the
'philosopher's stone' of the financial world âcycles and frequencies. Oh if only there were cycles !
given their bibliography runs to 7.5 pages, one can only imagine how much 'research' money and
salary had to be provided to pay for all that reading, computer time was probably $3.58
p 14 " . . . in the sense that it can be clearly formulated in numeric terms, and is potentially testable.
Provided, that is, that we can identify the peaks and troughs . . . "
" . . . since we are interested in identifying cycles . . . "
p 14/15 "A technical analyst would do this by eyeballing the chart, and marking trends with a ruler,
or the line drawing tool on some software package. We need a more systematic method that ensures
turning points are identified in a consistent way throughout the time series . . . "
"Even this simple approach requires some subjective judgement . . . "
pps 17 thru 25 pretty well describes how 'scientists' manipulate data in order to give proof to
their formula/premise or the means to apply their algorythms; p 22 describes how the authors
manipulated the data.
After what ? 15, 20 years of schooling 'scientists' have to 'study' something or they wouldn't get
paid, and is why 'financially oriented 'research'' may potentially result in fat consultantcy fees, the
self-defeating 'it doesn't work' 'proofs' are easy to create (?) given the amount of manipulation done
by the 'scientific expert'
p 28/31 proving the validity of the manipulation â and they tut! tut! tut! have the temerity to admit it !
"It is of course possible that our results are an artefact of the parameters of our testing procedure."
isn't that what's called a disclaimer ? and
"None of these sensitivity tests undermine our basic, negative, results." congratulations on obtaining the negative
such 'proofs' are the pre-sale edge to the 'now if you'll look at the system we've designed . . . '
traderdave72, thanks for your post and explaning something of your methodology
I've a copy of one of Larry Pesavento's charts in a pdf I'm doing, are you familiar with
his methods and are your methodologies similar ?
also do you project Price levels or use fibos for Correction levels ?
must say your chart has given me a greater appreciation of triangles
I've a copy of one of Larry Pesavento's charts in a pdf I'm doing, are you familiar with
his methods and are your methodologies similar ?
also do you project Price levels or use fibos for Correction levels ?
must say your chart has given me a greater appreciation of triangles
Yes, it is crystal clear.
I DO use fibos and this is why I answer your question.
Although I think it is obvious, I will add two more words:Since the USUAL fibo statistics is that poor, it is almost sure to AVOID them and this is statistically successful.
If you read the codes, I give a 5% tolerance in the usual fibo numbers. If you take, for example, the 0.500 and the 0.618 with 5% plus-minus tolerance, then you have a profitable "window" between 0,525 and 0,588.
The rest of this interesting research will be released soon.
Stay tuned !!!!!!!!!!!!
what ! refuted ???
"Thus, either Batchelor and Ramyar's null distribution constructed from block bootstrap is unreliable,
or Fibonacci ratios do occur more often in the stock market than would be expected in a random environment." â sounds like a win-win to me
'Another Look at Fibonacci Statistics' Deepak Goel
http://www.socionomics.net/pdf/Fibo_Statistics.pdf
attached pdf is Prechter's visual of the results of data manipulation
"Thus, either Batchelor and Ramyar's null distribution constructed from block bootstrap is unreliable,
or Fibonacci ratios do occur more often in the stock market than would be expected in a random environment." â sounds like a win-win to me
'Another Look at Fibonacci Statistics' Deepak Goel
http://www.socionomics.net/pdf/Fibo_Statistics.pdf
attached pdf is Prechter's visual of the results of data manipulation