Quote from Wallace:
'Magic Numbers in the Dow' ought to be titled 'Magic Manipulation of Data'
my emphasis
gad, and how poor it is.
"Our conclusion must be that there is no significant difference between the frequencies
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 !
you are completely incorrect. Reread the abstract and read the paper, don't skim for nuggets that match your limited view of hardcore research.
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
your thickness is evident. Did you ever write a paper??? research arms quote their sources and quote widely.
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 . . . "
you are completely incorrect. Reread the abstract and read the paper, don't skim for nuggets that match your limited biew of hardcore research.
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 []bsubjective[/b] 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 algorithms; p 22 describes how the authors
manipulated the data.
your thickness grows. You are a 6 year old throwing snowballs at something you barely grasp. Stop reading the National Enquirer and start reading serious works.
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'
idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot
Schools that don't do serious research are denied funding by serious corporations or governments. Try reading what happened to the South Korean leading researcher who fudged the data about stem cell research. He was kicked out, and his institution now has a major black eye. Institutions don't take kindly to their researchers walking on the plagiarism or falsification side. Research is published and dissected by others researchers in their community. Their reputation, accuracy and seriously correct research is what leads to serious funding.
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
idiot. You would be laughed out of any serious research effort, institution. Now, about your COUNTER research disproving them?
such 'proofs' are the pre-sale edge to the 'now if you'll look at the system we've designed . . . '
It is a university. They have no system and the paper was not for sale. It is called research. This is how academic and corporate research work.
The rest of your comments smack of someone with little grasp of university research, credit, and honest reporting.?
that is nearly as useless as Fib levels, but then again, the fact that most traders use TA and most traders lose money seems lost on the believers in it. (And yes, there are plenty of studies showing the near valueless of TA). There are a couple of books bouncing around Amazon.com to this effect. One tested over 60,000 TA indicator/interval combinations over a long time, and the results were bleak.