If you don't use trend lines, aren't open to exploring the use of fibonacci, then what do you deem to be a significant technical tool? Just wondering.
Higher lows and lower highs, specifically defined. That's the structure. The rest is strategy. Your approach may be far superior to mine, judging by the people you worked with. Mine works for me.
Hypothetical scenario: The price is falling... I say it may stop at S1... it broke S1... I say maybe S2... But it breaks S2... I say S3 and it stops, reverses and I either get stopped out of my short or actually due to some other reason saw that it was a bottom and get out. You (anyone for that matter.. you = the person being told about the S) who was picking bottoms lost money. I may not get the bottom, but i made money. It worked for me, whereas you say one of them had to work.. But it was a fibonacci that worked! Did it take some kind of support at S1 and S2 or did it go through and through. Throw out the arguments take out your guns... someones got to loose... but if I keep winning... It will not be because I am using something different, it will be because I using the same thing differently. Btw.. the reason I quoted you is because you sound as if you needed to get some clarification on how S/R works.
I know how S/R works, and I have no doubt that some traders use it to positive effect. I am not one of them. To the extent that they work, they will affect price action and it is this price action that will either get me in or out from time to time. But, again, that's just me.
You're right. You did only mention those three numbers. My apologies. However, for me to do any meaningful statistical analysis on their special "predictive" value (at least on a historical basis), I would have to compare the performance of those three levels with that of a host of other three-level series, say, 41.7 / 52.8 / 64.3 or 35.6 / 45.6 /60 or 28.9 / 56.2 / 74.8 or...well, you get the drift. And my guess is that, for the most part, your numbers probably wouldn't fare any better than any other reasonably dispersed three-level series. True, I haven't tested that hypothesis. But I'm guesing that neither have you. And yet, you're the one who's trading it.
You said you use"Higher lows and lower highs, specifically defined. That's the structure." So my question to you is the first time your HL / LH failed did you write off the entire concept or did you realize that trading is a game of odds and that your HL / LH pattern pushed the odds in your favor? So if we looked at a chart from today and you found a fib level that didn't work and I found a HL / LH that didn't work, what's the diff?
In that direction," the Cat said, " lives a Hatter and in that direction lives a March Hare. . . . They're both mad." "But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here." Alice didn't think that proved it at all. ... and frankly, neither do I. Not trying to be a killjoy here, but I presented a statistical paper disproving the assertion. If anyone wants to refute that conclusion on statistical grounds, the onus is upon them to reference or provide a counter argument using the same level of rigor. It's fair enough to say that it works for you (and I am in no way disputing the veracity of some of the more respectable posters), but if you are trying to argue on objective grounds, that's not the way to prove a point to the audience.
Several studies have already disproven fib/round numbers. But somehow, you continue to think they work Try this. why don't YOU do some homework and prove that they WORK???