Practicality of Fibonacci Retracements

I must say that fibo's do work and they work well. I agree that there are too many fib levels but i only trade 382 and 618.

(forget 50)

But just like trendlines, the only reason fibo works is because of market psychology. A Bunch of traders watching a certain fib Level and trading it accordingly will give fibonacci some merrit and will seem to work....and it does.

But as my friend says, whether we accept it or not it is simply buying the security at a cheaper price (pullback)

 

are you denying the statistical paper published by the fed?

I have a question what is the difference between a technican monitoring an intramarket relationship with std. deviations bands and a top fund using statistical analysis?

 

Technical Analysis by definition, is "information derived from the issue [stock/ indices"]. TA is not simply "indicators".

PRICE and VOLUME are the raw data. Indicators are derivatives. (Volume, contrary to conventional wisdom, is mostly WORTHLESS!)

 

[/B][/QUOTE]

 

The studies are quite clear. I don't give a rat's ass about who supports or denies anything. Unless backed by hard evidence, opinions are worthless.

And what paper are you talking about??? That is like saying, "are you denying the white paper of the Martians?"

 

'Magic Numbers in the Dow' ought to be titled 'Magic Manipulation of Data'

my emphasis
"Our conclusion must be that there is no significant difference between the frequencies
with which price and time ratios occur in cycles in the Dow Jones Industrial Average,
and frequencies which we would expect to occur at random in such a time series."

the authors aren't evaluating the use of the Fibonacci ratio or number series but looking for the
'philosopher's stone' of the financial world —cycles and frequencies. Oh if only there were cycles !

given their bibliography runs to 7.5 pages, one can only imagine how much 'research' money and
salary had to be provided to pay for all that reading, computer time was probably $3.58

p 14 " . . . in the sense that it can be clearly formulated in numeric terms, and is potentially testable.
Provided, that is, that we can identify the peaks and troughs . . . "
" . . . since we are interested in identifying cycles . . . "

p 14/15 "A technical analyst would do this by eyeballing the chart, and marking trends with a ruler,
or the line drawing tool on some software package. We need a more systematic method that ensures
turning points are identified in a consistent way throughout the time series . . . "
"Even this simple approach requires some []bsubjective[/b] judgement . . . "

pps 17 thru 25 pretty well describes how 'scientists' manipulate data in order to give proof to
their formula/premise or the means to apply their algorithms; p 22 describes how the authors
manipulated the data.

After what ? 15, 20 years of schooling 'scientists' have to 'study' something or they wouldn't get
paid, and is why 'financially oriented 'research'' may potentially result in fat consultantcy fees, the
self-defeating 'it doesn't work' 'proofs' are easy to create (?) given the amount of manipulation done
by the 'scientific expert'

p 28/31 proving the validity of the manipulation — and they tut! tut! tut! have the temerity to admit it !
"It is of course possible that our results are an artefact of the parameters of our testing procedure."
isn't that what's called a disclaimer ? and
"None of these sensitivity tests undermine our basic, negative, results." congratulations on obtaining the negative

such 'proofs' are the pre-sale edge to the 'now if you'll look at the system we've designed . . . '

 

LOL

Cracked me up, but it's true.

 

stand back

stand well back





.......................................... it's another rcanfiel rant

 

and another wallace "have nothing of use to say, so will just do & say meaningless things