Feel bad when people take his posts out of context it seems. I've read his book, which I enjoyed. Caught him on a couple podcast and webinars,etc. On chat with traders he talked about how he was a big user of fibonacci numbers and when he began quantifying his ideas later in his career he could not find anything to support it and that other things we're the underlying of the success with fibonacci. The moving average one is a great way to get people to just hit the code and try to prove something simply with moving averages. If you followed his work you'd see he uses keltner bands around a 20day EMA a lot. I use keltner bands myself a lot after reading his book and can't say theirs anything about the middle band that makes it the ideal entry but it is a tool I use to gauge price movement. It's kind of a way to visually see where the mean has been(general area) and when price has got a little too far from it or even gone parabolic with free bars above the bands and to move on to another setup with a better entry. Believe I saw it on some webcast(can't remember where) where he mentions he had actually seen a post on a educational site of someone using a MA to show an example of a trade they had entered. It was a candle with the MA touching almost the bottom and he said he had got in when price crossed up through the MA. Well he took it to the chart and bar replayed it through the day and showed how the daily candle unfolded and the MA didn't cross this educators supposed entrance price until the close of the day. The entry was impossible. This was a great way to get someone to think about what their using and how they test an idea. Another one of his blogs I've seen talked about is the support/resistance one where he asks you to draw some random horizontal lines on a chart and scroll and watch how price interacts with your random support/resistance lines. Everyone always goes all off about how it work sand blah blah. Then if you read some of his other stuff you'd notice he uses support/resistance but always calls it possible support/resistance and the blog post was more about getting people to think about where their putting these support/resistance lines and to ask if its better then random? For instance if you take a chart with gradient lines at every 5$ on the Y axis, it's pretty easy to let your eyes fool you as to how it bounces around these even numbers, but if you we're to switch the Y-Scale and lines, your eyes would easily justify that it bounces around every 2.50$ level or something like that. I pity people who try to put some ideas on the internet and the critique that comes in. I've followed his work and it usually makes me think about my process and what I'm doing and to hit the code and stat work more to prove my ideas. Theirs even some on here that I follow and see the masses attack. I take everything with a grain of salt and apply it where I see fit. Trading is a lonely endeavor and I find a lot of great ideas to work with or consider seeing what others write or talk about. I guess the key here as most experienced traders here would agree on is to validate the idea/concept and prove to yourself. Sure theirs some traders here could swear to me that tape reading is a great way to trade and I myself would just look at it and call it a bunch of random orders. Make it your own. I for one would like to see more constructive ideas and threads on ET but these attack/defend threads never seem to go anywhere constructive.
And I gotta ask, couldn't you come up with a better reply than that lame one? Which k-pia "liked", then "liked" the next post mentioning "... attack/defend threads ...". Little skizo there k-pia. LOL
I guess I have to point out that the day on my chart is THE high before the crash on Black Tuesday October 29th, 1929. "Cherry picking" the high point a month before the infamous date in market history.
Bottom right hand corner of chart - TradeStation. And I did the count. I wouldn't trust software/platform to get it right. But that is the problem some have with methods that allow for subjectivity. If only everything was all just black and white life (and trading) would be so so simple.
Very impressive. To code all of the EWT "rules" is a non-trivial task....especially considering the "minor waves within major waves" concept.
You don't really want to code the rules....as the rules were made up to sell books and seminars....right? And of course you sell books and seminars because you can make more money doing that than trading the discovery you are now selling. That said there certainly is a truth behind much of this, usually at the ratio of 4 ounce of truth to 12 pounds of bullshit. ..... it certainly is not as 4 rules and 6 cute colored lines on a screen chart. To find what is actually there: 1) take gigs of historical data covering hundreds of instruments, 2) learn Complexity Theory, 3) study the writings of Pythagoras, Heisenberg, Sheldrake along with current thought in String Theory, 4) toss all of that into some state of the art Deep Learning software and based of what the machine learns then trade.