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" structureâthe 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 0.62âjust 0.03 short of a value published in 1995 for real stock market data (Nature, vol 376, p 46). "
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.
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" structureâthe 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>âjust 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.
Now, now - don't argue with harry - afterall, he reads New Scientist (and apparently believe anything he reads)