If you invested 100.000 in George Soros' fund in 1969, it would have grown to 353 million in 1989. Not bad...
since i am on such a drunken, honest rampage... i will continue, perhaps at your expense... while I am what would generaly be called a political 'conservative' i have much objection to the theoretical foundation of archangels political orientation, as i was very much in the 'republicans for kerry' boat..... BUT i do very much agree with archangels disapproval of what is formaly called the 'unity of method' theory, that is: the same principals and laws that apply to natural science, generaly also apply to social science.....which coined by karl popper, was the 'unity of method'....i conceed that human beings can NOT be quantified as can the natural sciences, which consist of single celled organisms and the like, but rather cognisant beings that are prone to emotional stumili...this is the reason for the general failure that the social sciences have been since their inception..... the arrogant attempt to quantify humanity and fit it into a nice neat little equation....it just donsent work, and never will, so i guess you would call my social/economic theory rather sorosesque, although my political views differ from his in many fundamental ways......but i think the gist is this.....that quants can hope for temporal success at best....as the brief history of that community has shown.....and that the only 'survivors' of this industry are those that accept the reflexive nature of humanity and reject the academic's attepmt to quantify human behavior, and continualy commit themselves to understanding the current evolutionary phase of mkt.....so in a word.....YES....elliot wave IS a bunch of hooey, rather voodoo, that has NO real grounding in reality......
Elliott is a structure, and from structure can be constructed a disciplined approach. That trading discilpline could have value even if the structure does represent not an underlying truth. On the other hand, teach a computer Elliott and it will find thousands of valid wave counts without breaking any "rules," a fact that is inconvenient for its proponents. Chris Carolan
OK, but since the 80sPrechter has been calling for a big crash and a mega bearmarket. He has been wrong until now.
I use a 5 wave count all the time, esp. for intraday. See attached AAPL chart. Perfect 5 waves and then pull back to end of wave 4. I mostly eyeball it. The wave 5 is always the most irrational one. BTW that was the top intraday - AAPL drifted much lower all day. the big move up is the start of the count,
EW theory is much like the Bush Doctrine/foreign policy. Go on a mere whim. If everything pans out, take any and all credit for the success/ profitable trade. If not, tell people that it's all their fault and that they didn't read or count the waves right or some other nonsense, thus invalidating anything and everything. In another words. biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Only an idiot would take this TA technique seriously.
I really believe that there is something to EW theory. The problem with it to me is that the minor trends are "violated" all the time (they were part of some other structure, either forming or formed.) I think the key to it for average traders is to use it only in relation to the DOW theory that it "sits between." But that is high speculation... nitro
I agree 100%. As to your second part though, I think by _definition_ of EW that is what you are supposed to get, as EW claims to be fractal. nitro
There's an interesting write up on the merits of technical analysis below: "Making Sense Of The Chaos" http://www.kerryonworld.com