That's hillarious cabletrader. I just knew both of these guys when challenged would prove me right, they know nothing about trading and are the real ones trading micro lots! They are probably one and the same. Like you said he's Mr Alias man!
Ah they're only kids having a bit of fun you can't hold it against them, neither of them could trade their way out of a wet paper bag, that much is evident otherwise they would have been only too eager to post their analysis and prove themselves. But hey, this is the internet where everyone's fantasies can become a virtual reality! Before the two goons popped up this was actually quite an interesting thread, I've learned a couple of things here so thanks! Those two are so busy up their own butts they missed the value of the thread, their loss.
And cue some mutual ego stroking...."you're the best TraderZones"...."You're a whale IluvVol", jeez I'm gonna puke it's so predictable!
Nice article, seems like sound research... Liked it and this gives me even more reason to believe that Fibonacci retracements are a form of witchcraft. However, and this, TZ, is key, even the authors exhibit healthy skepticism about their own methodology, saying that the set of different input parameters they used is NOT exhaustive. For example: "It is of course possible that our results are an artefact of the parameters of our testing procedure" This is precisely what I am suggesting to you. Research is just that, research. It gets refuted, revised and there's no guarantee in there that it's correct. Anyways, the point is that you with your blind belief in the wrongness of something sound a LOT sillier than Amy, who is at least willing to consider the possibility that her success (whether real or imaginary, I don't care) is due to something altogether different than the mythical Fib levels. She sounds a lot more sensible than you, I must conclude.
I've been following this thread since the begining and it was very interesting. But it is turning rubbish now. It seems that we are on a school gardening. - "Let's challenge ourselves" - "You first" - "No do it first" - "No, will not do it until you begin" Some people should leave, especially those who brought the least. In fact, who brought absolutely nothing except a "Fib does not work viewpoint" I guess virtual social relationhips are particular but no need to turn nasty for such a tiny detail.
Just ignore the clowns AT and dont ever worry about showing them how to make money. It takes more than methodology to make money as those who make it know. regards f9
Quote from Martinghoul: However, and this, TZ, is key, even the authors exhibit healthy skepticism about their own methodology, saying that the set of different input parameters they used is NOT exhaustive. For example: "It is of course possible that our results are an artefact of the parameters of our testing procedure" Sound research considers all constraints, limitations and other similars. It in no way means they doubt their own work. It is not a sign that "It gets refuted, revised and there's no guarantee in there that it's correct." They pretty much established that Fib and round numbers are useless. Anyways, the point is that you with your blind belief in the wrongness of something sound a LOT sillier than Amy...She sounds a lot more sensible than you, I must conclude. Compared to Amy Trade, who thought she refuted a sound study with several "examples" of her own? This has not been the first nor last sound study to implode the amateur trading world, which blindly follows things like EW, Gann, Fib and other useless trash through belief, and not proof. Amy said "she makes a ton of money" I requested over 5 times for proof of such a stupid claim, and she dodged every request. Then I offered about 7 sites where she can get audited. Again, she dodges. Did you see her jumping right onto the idea of getting her "ton of money" audited? Of course not. Did you see her address my point that claiming you make money is meangingless without system stats like Sharpe, Sortino or profit Factor? And that it is RISK-ADJUSTED $$$ that matters? Of course not. 95% of traders are believed to lose their money, and Amy is their poster child. Amy is no more profitable than a Howler monkey with real dollars. Belief, claims and opinion in the trading arena are marks of newbies, losing and paper traders. I call her out on something because it was obvious she has no idea of what she is doing. If someone sees me as more silly than Amy, by my using strong evidence against opinion and claims, then I have little respect for and I am unmoved by their opinion.