Has anyone rigorously tested and quantified the effectiveness of logarithmic Fibonacci levels versus traditional linear Fibonacci levels in their trading strategies? I'm looking for data or backtesting results on which approach consistently provides better support/resistance or retracement accuracy across different markets/timeframes.
AFAIK log vs linear (or more correctly semi-log) only affects appearance, not levels themselves. 61.8% of 100 is still 61.80 no matter how it is scaled. Fib price, and IMO more importantly fib time projections, are best utilized when used in combination with other trading tools such as volume, trend or corrective patterns and momentum.
Logarithmic levels are calculated geometrically, resulting in different price levels... https://www.tradingview.com/script/Csz9sGJN-Logarithmic-and-Linear-Fibonacci-Levels/
The wrong price level at the high was used. Need to do that before deciding which calculation to use. BTW what symbol is that in TV? Tether only comes up as BTCUSDT and nowhere near the length of data that your chart shows on a daily setting, let alone weekly..
If we need to get into the math, we can take that to a separate thread. But in short: linear fib levels use a formula like start + (end - start) × m, while logarithmic levels use start × (end/start)^m. The methods are fundamentally different. Was hoping anyone knew of backtesting results on reversal levels and which set of fibs they're more likely to fall on.
AI says https://www.perplexity.ai/search/are-logarithmic-fibonacci-leve-8GhGzChsR4GQCb8BXMVdrA And it can't find any backtests.
Price action is dynamic and fibs can be applied to anything that has price action, stocks, options, futures, FX, crypto and beyond - in trends, corrections, ranges, etc. Why would you expect fibs to fall on specific levels more so than others across the whole trading spectrum?