Would those very conditions not also invalidate anything VN does? ("Anything that can be tested must be tested.")
Modern trader mag had an interesting interview a few months ago with a top pro poker player, who I think they said also trades. If trading is like gambling, perhaps that is a reasonable comparison. Regarding math and TA: Fibonacci: If you place Fib levels on a chart, are you using TA or math? Just curious (I don't use them, but have in the past).
Both trading and poker are gambling. They both involve betting on uncertain outcomes. Some poker players are consistently better than other poker players, just as some traders are consistently better than other traders.
If you're using Fibonacci numbers in your trading, then you're engaging in wishful thinking and mysticism, and you better hope that the rest of your trading plan makes up for those indulgences.
No, because VNs testing is statistically valid and takes those things into consideration in the tests.
That is a BS response. You are talking over your head. Statistical validity cannot overcome non-recurring patterns. Yet you regard non-recurring patterns as flawing the premise of TA. But not statistical testing? You are talking out of your hat. In fact, patterns need not be identical, but they can have similarity that can be numerically identified for trading purposes. That is what VN alludes to, and that is what intelligent use of TA can accomplish, your army of two-dimensional straw men notwithstanding.
My understanding it that some algos do use Fib numbers and treat them as support and resistance. If enough traders use any indicator, couldn't it become a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts?