TZ, I won't argue with you, because there's really no point. This is, therefore, my last post in response to you.
My view now is that you're not familiar enough with the nature and the workings of scientific method and peer review. NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is ever SURELY ESTABLISHED in science. The embedded skepticism is the beauty of it and that's why the scientific process works. How many examples do you need of this? Remember the recent case of the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by Sir Andrew Wiles. Or what about Galileo? There's countless cases in number theory, physics and even that bastard child of the scientific community, economics. So the fact that you're insisting that this study, good as it may be, is the ULTIMATE truth is what I find silly.
Secondly, you really have no idea what you're talking when you imply that professionals don't use Fib levels and other forms of witchcraft. As even your study suggests, a lot of professionals (not myself) use all sorts of technical analysis, in spite of professing it doesn't work (I just got a bbg today talking about the 38% fib retracement in DXY).
Thirdly, I have no wish to participate in your spat with Amy about her proving her track record. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve and I think you're barking up the wrong tree, given the public forum that these exchanges take place in.
Finally, your statement that 'belief, claims and opinion' have no place in the professional trading arena tells me unequivocally that it is you who HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Trading is all about 'opinion and beliefs'.
Given all this above I would say that there's just no point in talking to you, because you will never understand. The big difference between myself and you is that, while I also believe Fib levels and other technical analysis doesn't work, I am ALWAYS willing to learn and to try to understand new things. I am also ALWAYS willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong.
Good luck to you, though!
My view now is that you're not familiar enough with the nature and the workings of scientific method and peer review. NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is ever SURELY ESTABLISHED in science. The embedded skepticism is the beauty of it and that's why the scientific process works. How many examples do you need of this? Remember the recent case of the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by Sir Andrew Wiles. Or what about Galileo? There's countless cases in number theory, physics and even that bastard child of the scientific community, economics. So the fact that you're insisting that this study, good as it may be, is the ULTIMATE truth is what I find silly.
Secondly, you really have no idea what you're talking when you imply that professionals don't use Fib levels and other forms of witchcraft. As even your study suggests, a lot of professionals (not myself) use all sorts of technical analysis, in spite of professing it doesn't work (I just got a bbg today talking about the 38% fib retracement in DXY).
Thirdly, I have no wish to participate in your spat with Amy about her proving her track record. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve and I think you're barking up the wrong tree, given the public forum that these exchanges take place in.
Finally, your statement that 'belief, claims and opinion' have no place in the professional trading arena tells me unequivocally that it is you who HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Trading is all about 'opinion and beliefs'.
Given all this above I would say that there's just no point in talking to you, because you will never understand. The big difference between myself and you is that, while I also believe Fib levels and other technical analysis doesn't work, I am ALWAYS willing to learn and to try to understand new things. I am also ALWAYS willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong.
Good luck to you, though!
He must have been dropped on his head as a baby.