Really he said that ? Is he the same person that does "Analysis of "Astro-Cycles" " then ?
http://www.tradingtutor.com/
http://www.tradingtutor.com/
MurreyMath
- Thread starter traderbambu
- Start date
I don't talk about MM in particular perhaps it's crap, I don't judge MM I just comment the pundit I can read 10000000000 of times:
It is not about predicting THE future (of the world) but about predicting the future of the market which is less ambitious
.
And it is very funny that some people pretending that they are so HUMBLE to recognize that they KNOW NOTHING, PRETEND to KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW MORE
. Is IGNORANCE the MOTHER of KNOWLEDGE ??? Then it would be a new paradigm and if so before Einstein, since nobody can know about Relativity then Einstein should have never discovered anything so his theory must be false by advance is what I should understand following your kind of argument ?
Are you're are also ignorant of probabilities ? Randomness and Prediction are not antinomic. As a statistician said randomness leads to global certitude that's why some Universal Constant like the Number PI has been found by probabilities experiments like the Buffon's one. It is completely false to state that you cannot predict anything. You cannot predict the next occurence but you can predict that something will occur with x% probability which can be 80% probability if you want within y occurences. And in some market you don't even have to be true within the y occurences. This is the case for stocks. For options you have the y occurences constraint. For futures you have not this y occurences constraint but you have it implicitly if you are undercapitalised. So Futures are easier than Options except when you are not capitalised enough.
It is not about predicting THE future (of the world) but about predicting the future of the market which is less ambitious
.And it is very funny that some people pretending that they are so HUMBLE to recognize that they KNOW NOTHING, PRETEND to KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW MORE
. Is IGNORANCE the MOTHER of KNOWLEDGE ??? Then it would be a new paradigm and if so before Einstein, since nobody can know about Relativity then Einstein should have never discovered anything so his theory must be false by advance is what I should understand following your kind of argument ?Are you're are also ignorant of probabilities ? Randomness and Prediction are not antinomic. As a statistician said randomness leads to global certitude that's why some Universal Constant like the Number PI has been found by probabilities experiments like the Buffon's one. It is completely false to state that you cannot predict anything. You cannot predict the next occurence but you can predict that something will occur with x% probability which can be 80% probability if you want within y occurences. And in some market you don't even have to be true within the y occurences. This is the case for stocks. For options you have the y occurences constraint. For futures you have not this y occurences constraint but you have it implicitly if you are undercapitalised. So Futures are easier than Options except when you are not capitalised enough.
"Your own system is obviously fine": obviously ? No for some people just because I pretend that my model is deterministic for them it is just out of possibilities.
I don't know MM, so I don't discuss MM. I just say that you can't argue that MM is false only with general argument. As always before judging something you must examine the details. I didn't examine the details of MM so I just won't say nothing about MM.
Some people judge that Fibonacci, Gann Square etc... are craps. This is rational attitude above all for Gann Square because Fibonacci has no more rational basis but it is less complex to prove by stochastic measure (see for example the Orlin Grabbe article I posted about the Haussdorf dimension of 1/PHI). So people that don't believe in Fibonacci are right to do so if they had never tried to observe it objectively. And it would be coherent attitude that they also doubt MM. What is incoherent is people who uses Gann stuff and says that MM stuff is crap without arguments. Gann Stuff is as much crap as anything else from the first point of view above all since it is based on Astrology cycle !
? No for some people just because I pretend that my model is deterministic for them it is just out of possibilities. I don't know MM, so I don't discuss MM. I just say that you can't argue that MM is false only with general argument. As always before judging something you must examine the details. I didn't examine the details of MM so I just won't say nothing about MM.
Some people judge that Fibonacci, Gann Square etc... are craps. This is rational attitude above all for Gann Square because Fibonacci has no more rational basis but it is less complex to prove by stochastic measure (see for example the Orlin Grabbe article I posted about the Haussdorf dimension of 1/PHI). So people that don't believe in Fibonacci are right to do so if they had never tried to observe it objectively. And it would be coherent attitude that they also doubt MM. What is incoherent is people who uses Gann stuff and says that MM stuff is crap without arguments. Gann Stuff is as much crap as anything else from the first point of view above all since it is based on Astrology cycle !
Homosexually inclined ? How does he know that
Quote from ArchAngel:
Yes I have. I think the correct phrase is that they have been "supposedly" coded for MM - they haven't been "successfully" coded for it.
As I said earlier, the problem with any code based on the Kruzel algorithm is that there are a lot of times when it doesn't compute the correct eighth values - I didn't say ALL the time.
Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong - unfortunately you don't know when it's giving you the wrong values until it's too late or unless you're running a correctly computing program at the same time. But when it produces the wrong result it seems to be most often at the worst time from a trading standpoint. If you've only looked at a relatively small # of charts, you might not have seen the problem yet - although there have been several charts posted here that people have already pointed out erroneous eighth values on.
I was looking at the Kruzel stuff a while back but after I found a few discrepencies between Kruzel's spreadsheet vs. an MM program, I did more extensive comparisons on a raft of symbols and bar lengths and frame sizes and the Kruzel #s were wrong around 25%+ of the time. Actually it was wrong 100% of the time for a spectrum of price range conditions that happened to come up in 25%+ of the tests.
Bottomline - the Kruzel algorithm isn't the complete MM calculation and if code uses it to compute its eighths, then it will definitely be wrong part of the time (so I ditched my plans to use it and just use a program that calculates the MM lines correctly).
Of course if, as someone said, it's not important to have the right numbers (which of course is ludicrous) - then why bother trying to pretend to be computing MM at all, just throw up a bunch of random numbers.
Have you actually seen a program that is coded for MM produce correct MMLs one day and not the next? I routinely see MMLs on two programs (Tradestation and AmiBroker) and have never seen a variation from MM's software. Others have made your claim, but so far nobody has demonstrated what their claim is valid. Your 25% claim, I am sure, is incorrect for a correctly coded program since that would easily show up. Bottom line is that day after day, these program duplicate the MMLs in MM's software. Of course, whether MM is the best way to go with or without other supportive analysis, etc. is another matter. Until hard evidence is presented, claims that MMLs cannot be duplicated in other software are not meaningful. All it takes is a couple of gifs to prove that the coding is not equivalent. Enuf ced.