In my last post, I talked about how people underestimate the probability of things happening by coincidence. I also talked about how this causes people to read more meaning into coincidental events than what is really there.
In that post I briefly alluded to another common phenomena in human psychology...how people tend to remember hits and forget misses. This creates psychological bias and leads people to believe in connections and other things that don't really exist.
Have you ever thought of a particular person in your life, and a minute later the person calls you on the phone? Often we tend to think such a coincidence is eerie and maybe that there's some sort of supernatural psychological connection.
But how many times did you think of that person and the person didn't call? Probably too many times to count. But you forget all these times, and the one time they did call, it's such a powerful coincidence that you remember it. You remember the "hit", and forget the "misses", leading you to believe in a connection that really isn't there.
This phenomena is what leads people to believe in things like astrology, psychics, or "speakers to the dead." Have you ever watched John Edward's "The Other Side"? Here's a guy who claims to be able to "hear" the dead relatives of others, and even will show his "powers" on national TV. But what John is really doing is a technique called "Cold Reading." He is basically using high probability guesses to learn more information about the dead relative. He uses cues of the live person he is speaking to, to get an idea if he is right or wrong. He emphasizes the guesses he gets right and quickly moves on from the guesses he gets wrong.
An uncritical person watching the show will notice John's hits, and forget John's misses. This leads the person to believe that John truly has the ability to speak to the dead.
If you ever watch the show, count how much John actually gets wrong. I've done this before and he gets quite a bit wrong. It's important to pay attention to the misses and not just the hits.
How does this relate to trading?
I wrote some past blogs about designing your own trading system. I talked significantly about backtesting. When you backtest your trading system, it's important to be aware of the phenomena of "remembering hits/forgetting misses."
Let's say you've got a certain type of trade setup, and you've made some huge profits a few times off this type of setup. You start thinking that maybe you've got a nice setup that will work well.
However, how many times have you seen the same setup and you took a loss? Do you remember or notice those times?
In my own trading, I had some certain types of setups that I thought were good trading setups. However, over time I noticed I wasn't as consistently profitable as I thought I should be with them. What was the problem?
I paid more attention to the times where I profited off those setups, versus the times where I didn't. Also, when I backtested, it was easier to notice the setups that would've resulted in a profit versus the ones that didn't. My tendency to remember the hits created a skewed idea of how good the trading setups were.
So, it's important to be aware of ALL of the times you notice a particular trade setup, and how often you truly profit off those setups.
An Update on Risk Asset Measures
9 minutes ago
Posts
44 comments:
This is another great reason to track all your trades. I simply use an Excel file; I keep track of each separate trading strategy in a different worksheet. That way I know what is working and what is not. Once I know that I can start to drill down into the data and figure out why something is working or not.
You mean Jon Edwards CAN'T talk to the dead???? wtf!
haha!
Funny it's usually the reverse for me. When I make a mistake it really bothers me, if I make a really bad one sometimes have to stop trading for a couple weeks. I can't remember all my wins but man my losses I don't forget those.
But yeah it doesn't really matter which way you remember it, backtesting and acccounting are of critical importance.
Tasty,
Thanks for the comment. I have a tendency to repeat mistakes until I've gotten burned so many times that I finally stop making them. I usually have to touch that hot stove 4-5 times before I know not to touch it again.
Why don't y'all just use Fibonacci and be done with it
Haha!
Jvento - Once you realize that traders with million dollar portfolios do use fibonacci for not only buy areas, but sell points, you'll see how ignorant you've been about it.
Anonymous,
First, the number of professional traders who use Fibonacci is irrelevant to whether it actually has value beyond just an arbitrary system of numbers around which to plan trades. You are committing the "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy....that because something is popular, it must be true.
In fact, there is research showing that professional traders are just as likely to see patterns in randomness, just like anybody else. This was shown in a study where professional traders were asked to use a computer mouse to control a dot on the screen. In reality, the movements of the dot were random and the mouse was not even connected to the computer. But the traders happily reported that they were learning a rule linking the two, and controlling the dot.
There is also research showing the Dow Jones does not follow Fibonacci retracements beyond what mere chance would dictate.
There is simply no logical reason why stock prices would follow Fibonacci retracements. Any appearance that they do is simply due to random chance, combined with the confirmation bias of the people who believe in Fibonacci along with the concept of remembering hits (noticing when stocks meet Fib retracements) and forgetting misses (forgetting all the times where retracements occur at non-Fib levels).
Money moves a market, and when that person with the money is using fibs to place/remove his/her money, you'll slowly start to figure out why Fibonacci works. It, like all analytical tools, isn't 100% accurate.
Good luck in your trading.
*********
and when that person with the money is using fibs to place/remove his/her money,
*********
I have not seen a shred of evidence that institutions and the big players heavily use fib. Second, even if they are, it is likely that they are all using fib in different ways and in different time frames, which would cancel out any obvious effect of fib.
************
you'll slowly start to figure out why Fibonacci works.
*************
Claiming something works doesn't make it so. You have not provided any evidence that stocks meet Fib retracements beyond what chance alone would dictate.
*************
It, like all analytical tools, isn't 100% accurate.
************
Fib is not even 75% accurate. It is no better than a coin flip.
The easiest way to demonstrate this is to take a large number of stock charts, and identify all of the retracement levels (before you draw your fib lines to eliminate bias). Then, draw the fib lines and find out how many times the retracements meet Fib lines versus when they don't. I can guarantee you that it will be 50/50 with a large enough sample.
The fact is, if you draw enough horizontal lines through a chart (whether Fib or not), stocks are going to find support or resistance at those lines on mere chance.
Since you know so much about how TA should be applied, you must be a very successful trader.
You know, there are people who write/direct million dollar blockbuster films, and then there are the critics who sit on the sidelines pointing out how every piece of that film is worthless, yet when that critic was a child, they dreamed of becoming a film maker, yet never knew how.
So either you're a film maker, or a critic. Which one are you?
*******
Since you know so much about how TA should be applied, you must be a very successful trader.
********
Such sarcasm is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem. However, ad hominems are usually the tactics of people who do not have any evidence to support their assertions.
Also, the success of a trader is irrelevant to whether stocks find support/resistance at Fibonacci levels beyond chance.
**********
So either you're a film maker, or a critic. Which one are you?
**********
You've set up a false dichotomy here, as I am neither.
One should also note that critical thinking skills are very important and are unfortunately not taught in school to people in the U.S. Most people do not recognize fallacies in their own logic or in the logic of others. The consequences of lack of critical thinking are quite high, as it can lead to things as large of a scale as the Iraq War.
This was said to me in a chatroom I frequent:
"I don't know how you do it, but you nail tops and bottoms within mere pennies very consistently! Thank you!"
Perhaps you should step off of your soapbox for a change and consider that there might be even a slim possibility that fibonacci works.
The fact that Fibonacci works for you is not evidence for anything, other than that it's just an arbitrary set of numbers around which you plan trades.
Mentioning that it works for you is no better evidence than an infomercial testimonial for a weight loss product.
So basically, if you want to sum up everything regarding your [u]belief[/u] of Fibonacci, anybody who uses Fibonacci to trade, loses 50% of the time, on a long enough time line, of course.
Fibonacci doesn't apply to reality. This is all in my head.
I will obey.
What is your next bidding, my master?
At the very least, *use* it yourself. Nobody can learn how to apply *any* tool unless they have devoted time to it. The probability that you've spent more than a total of 48hrs applying fibonacci and studying it, is very low. This is a test I performed in my basement. Statistics don't lie.
Instead of reading these tests, or should I say, one test a University performed for a senior project which lacks basis for any mechanically applied assumptions, I would suggest you learn how to use it, and ask questions where you may or may not understand something.
**********
you want to sum up everything regarding your [u]belief[/u] of Fibonacci,
************0
A belief can be considered accepting something as true regardless of the evidence, similar to the concept of faith.
My position is not a belief. My position is based on the evidence (or should I say, the lack thereof).
Your position seems primarily based on your own personal experience rather than empirical data. Thus, your position falls more into the belief category than mine.
*********
anybody who uses Fibonacci to trade, loses 50% of the time,
**********
You've constructed a strawman here.
This was not my claim. My claim was that stocks do not find support or resistance at Fibonacci levels more than what chance would dictate. This does not mean someone will lose 50% of the time if they use Fibonacci.
The only reason Fibonacci "works" is because it provides a framework upon which people base trading decisions, so that they have a trading plan and so that they don't trade randomly. It is no different from any other arbitrary system. For example, I like to use a 3-4% stop loss on my positions. It works for me but it is a completely arbitrary number, based on the fact I trade day rangers and I'm looking usually for a 8-10% move or more. Thus, my stop loss is set at a fraction of what my profit target is, setting up my reward to be greater than my risk. But this is just an arbitrary framework around which I have constructed a trading system. There is nothing magical about these numbers. I could choose a different set of numbers and as long as I'm not chasing trades, I'm choosing high probability setups, and as long as I'm sticking with my plan, I will be successful.
*********
At the very least, *use* it yourself.
*********
That's like telling me to use a weight loss product that has no scientific data to support it.
**********
The probability that you've spent more than a total of 48hrs applying fibonacci and studying it, is very low.
***********
Once again, if you have empirical data showing my claim to be incorrect, then by all means provide it.
*************
one test a University performed for a senior project which lacks basis for any mechanically applied assumptions,
**************
Nice hand-waving, but if you're referring to the study on the Dow Jones, it was a very well designed paper. If you can point out the flaws in the methodology, then by all means do so.
************
I would suggest you learn how to use it,
***********
I find it very arrogant of you to come here on my blog and tell me how I should be trading....particularly someone posting under "Anonymous" who can't even show who he really is. Who is the one on the soapbox here?
Again, if you have empirical data to show that stocks find support and resistance at Fib levels greater than what chance would dictate, then please provide it. Otherwise you really have no argument whatsoever.
Anonymous,
I don't care much for traders with "million dollar portfolios". What I care about is what I can use to trade better and make money.
If you can demonstrate with charts, time stamped logs, and a track record of winning trades, then I will be interested in your analysis.
If you cannot provide that, then please step away and stop bothering me with your fake self aggrandizement and blustering. I don't give a f*ck about what you think is important.
I don't make many trades, however, I've shown many charts over the last few months, of which obviously none of you pay attention. I guess that's just an example of "forgetting the hits," a point parallel to this latest blog entry.
My trades consist of playing momentum (also known as volatility, which is not a new thing), and buying retracements off of fib levels.
You think I'm going to back track my last 30 trades over the last several months just to demonstrate how a tool should be applied?
It's ok, in two years, the majority of you will be out of the market.
Yngvai, I've seen your alerts, and they're not pretty.
"I don't care much for traders with "million dollar portfolios". What I care about is what I can use to trade better and make money."
You don't see the connection here? If you can see where profit taking will take place, or where support will fall, you can plan ahead and watch specific areas for support. It's not a hard concept to understand.
Fibonacci does not PREDICT direction of the trend, so your new fibonacci blog is completely pointless and demonstrates how clueless you are about how to apply the tool.
***************
I guess that's just an example of "forgetting the hits,"
*****************
It was obvious you were "Traderart"...I don't know why you post anonymously.
Maybe you need to read my post closer.
It's called REMEMBERING hits and FORGETTING misses. This applies to you because when you draw your Fib lines, you always ignore all the retracements to the non-Fib levels. I could take all the charts you've posted and circle all the support and resistance to non-Fib levels which your eye ignores because you only notice the hits.
*********
and buying retracements off of fib levels.
*********
Exactly...it's just an arbitrary way to determine where you want to buy on a pullback. Nothing magical about it.
*********
It's ok, in two years, the majority of you will be out of the market.
**********
A typical comment of someone who doesn't have any evidence to support his position.
***********
Yngvai, I've seen your alerts, and they're not pretty.
************
Really? You've seen my alerts? Are you an IU chat member? If so, show the alerts, and tell me which ones "weren't pretty". Funny that you say this because I've had people email me and tell me that I've nailed some alerts in chat.
Of course, you ignore the fact that they're ALERTS to stocks that are moving...nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean that the stocks will continue their moves.
Second, whether my alerts are pretty or not is irrelevant to whether stocks find support/resistance at Fib levels beyond what chance would dictate. Funny how you keep trying to divert from the main point at hand, resorting to ad hominems, strawmen, and other fallacies. But these are usually the tactics of someone who doesn't have a solid argument.
I left a simple comment:
"Money moves a market, and when that person with the money is using fibs to place/remove his/her money, you'll slowly start to figure out why Fibonacci works. It, like all analytical tools, isn't 100% accurate.
Good luck in your trading."
And you went off, using why logic dictates that a tool is simply random, lacking any real world use. How many times has something seemingly illogical turned out to be quite logical, and that your initial analysis of that thing was the polar opposite?
All I'm saying is to think outside of the box. Try new things. Experiment.
*********
And you went off, using why logic dictates that a tool is simply random, lacking any real world use.
***********
Another strawman.
I never said Fibonacci "lacks any real world use."
I said stocks don't find support/resistance at Fib levels beyond what chance would dictate....that's it.
Yes, it's a tool, but it's an arbitrary one, no different from setting a profit target of 10% or a stop loss of 3%.
It's a tool that helps give someone a framework around which to plan trades. But it cannot predict support/resistance levels beyond chance. There's a big difference between these two concepts.
'I never said Fibonacci "lacks any real world use."'
It's implied.
"I said stocks don't find support/resistance at Fib levels beyond what chance would dictate....that's it."
This implies lacking real world use.
I claim that stocks *do* find its heaviest support/resistance at fib points. If this wasn't true, Fibonacci would be useless. It doesn't matter if it gives you a framework or not
"But it cannot predict support/resistance levels beyond chance."
You're wrong, which is why I brought up that big players use Fibonacci. Do I have to show proof, or would you be willing to just ask yourself "What if?"
I already know what you're going to say, but go ahead..
*******
It's implied.
*******
No, it's not implied. Arbitrary frameworks can provide value to traders because they assist in trade management.
For example, if I set a 10% profit target on a day ranger, that's an arbitrary number I've decided on. But it still has "real world" use in that it helps me hold onto a winning trade and not exit prematurely.
There are many examples of arbitrary systems that traders use that provide value. They work because they provide a framework for trade and risk management...not because there's something magical about them.
There are even traders that make money with less than a 50% win rate....worse than a coin flip. But their systems work because their winners are huge and the losers are tiny, and they practice good risk and trade management.
******
You're wrong,
******
Funny how you say that, yet you still have not provided empirical evidence to support your position.
Asserting something doesn't make it so.
********
which is why I brought up that big players use Fibonacci.
**********
I asked you to provide evidence for this claim which you failed to do.
Even if this claim was true, all the big players would be have to be using Fibonacci in the exact same manner, and in the exact same time frames, which is unlikely. Remember, big players compete against each other in the trading world as well.
Finally, on your blog you've posted a number of penny stocks (like EBHI). The big players generally aren't playing the pennies, which would also go against your claim that Fib works because the big players are using them.
*******
Do I have to show proof,
******
The burden of proof lies on the individual making the positive assertion.
********
would you be willing to just ask yourself "What if?"
********
I could ask myself "What if Bigfoot exists?" but with the lack of good evidence it's kind of a useless question.
Why are you so dead set on getting others to use Fibonacci? It's like you're totally emotionally attached to it or something. If it works for you, that's fine. But I don't see why you go onto other people's blogs and tell them how they should be trading. I don't go over to your blog and tell you you shouldn't be using Fib, do I?
Traders need to find their own niche. Dr. Steenbarger has a good post on this here:
traderfeed.blogspot.com/2006/10/finding-your-performance-niche.html
You've found your niche. Good for you. Now let me find my own.
I will never use Fibonacci without any empirical evidence that it can predict support/resistance beyond chance.
Did you need empirical evidence on statistical equations before you began learning the formulas and applying them? Or do you rely on old men to do the work for you?
I got out of my EBHI trade without a loss on 5/27. I bought more on a fib level at .40-.42 on 5/21, and yes, people who trade EBHI will use fibonacci. Now it's more news driven than anything so you can't expect to use any kind of analysis to trade it, unless you want to lose your initial trade. However, big players *still* use fibonacci on high volume pennies. Even SPNG found support on an intraday fib level. It's not random.
But for something that is so arbitrary and random, it amazes me how I'm able to hit support levels, and resistance levels within mere pennies.
You also don't realize that support or resistance that doesn't fall on your level is just as important as ones that do.
Take PMTI, for example. It has yet to continue a breakout. As for "fibonacci predicting direction," it doesn't, which is why you use multiple charts for different scenarios.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1YXfaSRrRE4/SjRTgf3UXkI/AAAAAAAAAFw/4OP4bQs-wpI/s1600-h/pmticorrect.png For intraday trading PMTI
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1YXfaSRrRE4/SimT7_yB9ZI/AAAAAAAAAFY/D0bWIIvl4Ek/s1600-h/PMTI.png for when PMTI breaks out. You will find profit taking at one of those levels. Which level? You won't know until it gets there, but it's obvious when it takes place.
Someone asked me in chat where support on HANS would fall while it was in decline.
It takes an understanding of how to apply fibonacci and in which time frame to start looking at when finding support as something that's in freefall. This is the chart I showed him
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1YXfaSRrRE4/SimYI2jsITI/AAAAAAAAAFo/gJZX5ZrGIBw/s1600-h/hans.png
Even biotech, who do you think are running these up? Real institutions who believe they'll get value for their investment in 3 years? No, individuals with large accounts who momo trade. Where do they take profits? Where do they buy on dips? Fibonacci. You don't have to believe me. I don't have a class project to do anytime soon. When my professor requires one, I'll let you know. I'll even post it on a university website to give it credibility. The design will be top notch as well, as my other 3 group members will have experience in documentation.
"Why are you so dead set on getting others to use Fibonacci? It's like you're totally emotionally attached to it or something. If it works for you, that's fine. But I don't see why you go onto other people's blogs and tell them how they should be trading. I don't go over to your blog and tell you you shouldn't be using Fib, do I?"
I started this discussion again because of Jvento's fibonacci comment. Just because something isn't understood doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Do you need empirical evidence for everything you try? Where's the empirical evidence for volume moving a stock? A huge increase in volume is a lot of times indication of a top. You just go with what has been told to you from IU, and I doubt you have empirical evidence to back up that claim. This need for empirical evidence on everything is a farce. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
But I guess I'm just a blind and delusional trader who puts faith in Fibonacci like a religion, right?
"But it cannot predict support/resistance levels beyond chance. There's a big difference between these two concepts."
And you know this because why again? Because you read a paper on the subject? So that's all it takes, is one paper to convince you? Damn, no wonder why this country went to war with Iraq
**********
Did you need empirical evidence on statistical equations before you began learning the formulas and applying them? Or do you rely on old men to do the work for you?
************
Another red herring and irrelevant to the discussion.
For someone who thinks he has such a solid argument, you resort to a lot of fallacies to try to support your position. In fact, if I were teaching a class in fallacies, a lot of what you've written here would be a perfect example for the students.
*******
However, big players *still* use fibonacci on high volume pennies.
*********
Argumentum ad nauseam.....
You seem to think that if you just keep repeating something, it makes it true.
You have constantly stated over and over that the big players use Fibonacci. Time and time again, I've asked you to provide evidence to support this statement. AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. If what you say is true, you should be able to easily provide some type of evidence that this is the case. But you can't.
And, not only that, but you keep ignoring this other point. Even if what you say is true, it would mean that all the big players are using Fibonacci IN THE EXACT SAME WAY and IN THE EXACT SAME TIME FRAME and IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER THAT YOU ARE. What do you think is the probability of that? Very, very low, making your claims even more incredulous.
The other amusing thing is that last month I was at the book store thumbing through a book where they interviewed top level professional traders. I wish I could remember the title so I could link to it here. Anyway, they specifically asked the traders if they used Fibonacci....90% of them didn't and didn't see any value in it. So once again, the evidence doesn't support your claims.
**********
Even SPNG found support on an intraday fib level. It's not random.
**********
And once again, you remember a hit and forget the misses...which is what this blog post was all about.
OF COURSE stocks are going to find support at fib levels. IF YOU DRAW ENOUGH HORIZONTAL LINES THROUGH A CHART, A STOCK IS GOING TO FIND SUPPORT AT THOSE LEVELS ON CHANCE ALONE. You also have to consider all the cases where the stock DIDN'T find support at those levels....something you constantly fail to do.
Your assertions are a perfect example of selection bias.
***********
No, individuals with large accounts who momo trade. Where do they take profits? Where do they buy on dips? Fibonacci.
***********
If you don't have any evidence to support this claim, you're wasting your time trying to convince me it's true.
***********
I'll even post it on a university website to give it credibility.
************
Posting something on a University website doesn't give something credibility. Peer review and publication in a scientific journal are the gold standards for scientific credibility.
************
Do you need empirical evidence for everything you try? Where's the empirical evidence for volume moving a stock?
**************
Actually, I've run a number of regression analyses on volume and it is a very strong predictor of stock price movement.
************
You just go with what has been told to you from IU,
*************
You just love to make shit up, don't you? You're the king of making blind assertions.
I ran regression analyses looking at how volume related upside price movement. It was a very strong predictor. IU has nothing to do with it.
***************
and I doubt you have empirical evidence to back up that claim.
**************
Haha....I can post the regression results if you wish.
***************
This need for empirical evidence on everything is a farce.
****************
Another strawman.
No one is claiming that you need empirical evidence for everything. I'm just asking you to provide evidence for your claim that stocks find support/resistance at Fib levels beyond what chance would dictate. A claim like this can be tested empirically if it was true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I claim that I went to the grocery store today, that's an ordinary claim and you probably wouldn't require me to provide proof of it.
However, if I claim I went to the store and saw Bigfoot, that's an extraordinary claim....a claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
Likewise, the claim that stocks somehow find support and resistance at these magical numbers (beyond what chance would dictate) is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence.
********
And you know this because why again? Because you read a paper on the subject?
********
It's called the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis in this case is that stocks don't meet support/resistance at Fib levels beyond what chance would dictate.
The alternative hypothesis is that they do.
You only reject the null hypothesis when you have sufficient evidence to do so.
Your personal experience, along with an unsupported claim that big players use Fib, is not sufficient evidence to reject it.
In fact, the evidence supports the null hypothesis. There's a scientific paper supporting it. But it's not just this paper. It's also the logical problems in your explanations as to why you believe the alternative hypothesis. It's also the obvious selection bias that you have been showing.
*********
Damn, no wonder why this country went to war with Iraq
**********
We went to war with Iraq because the powers that be did not know how to objectively evaluate evidence, and did not consider the fallacies in their thinking.
In other words, they did not even have close to enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (Saddam doesn't have any WMD's).
Oh, and your claim that the "Magic Numbers in the Dow" paper was a senior project?
The lead author in the paper, Roy Batchelor, is a professor of banking and finance at the very prestigious Sir John Cass Business School in London.
The other author is Dr. Richard Ramyar, a PhD scientist at the same school.
Nice "senior project"
I have a price target on RF at 5.17 and 5.63 using Fibonacci.
Which statistical formula would I need to figure out the chances of those points being major profit-taking/resistance areas (meaning, it doesn't just bounce, but knocks it down considerably (10% or so) in the coming days/weeks?
I'd like to come within .03 of those numbers.
I am in suport of your argument on Fibonacci. However, I must take issue with your swipe at those who supported the Iraq War. Your implication is that the war is attributable to a lack of "critical thinking" on the part of the American Populace. I absolutely disagree. Arguments of opinion can be made in support and in opposition. But to assert that one position is a "critical thinker's" argument clearly implies that the other is not. You are letting a political/personal belief lead your mind astray. Again, my argument is not one of support or opposition to the war, but the assertion you made. A person who prides himself on logical thought should recognize the error of his ways :-)...
I am not interested in debating this point: you would cite following blindly because of WMD, I would say that both political parties and two presidents, Prime Ministers, the CIA, Russian intelligence, etc were fooled by Sadam. You would say the Taliban and OBL were not in Iraq. I would say Iraq was a sponsor of terror and had defied UN Sanctions, butchered its people, etc. I would say that if you have a mosquito problem, you kill the mosquitos but you also "drain the swam." Yadda, yadda, yadda. I don't begrudge you your personal beliefs about the war. I assert that your beliefs are coloring your logic. Respectfully submitted, as I am a fan of what you do here.
Why is it that Anonymous always sounds exactly like Jim Crammer?
Another read on technical indicators for traderdart
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=57639
i can only conclude that since inst traders w/ million dollar books use fibs as sell points, billion dollar banks must do the same w/ currencies. after all, a market is a market
also try to find some work by christopher thomas may. he has a piece i just read in a book last night called complex indicators: Nonlinear pricing and reflexivity
the concept is that all classical portfolio theory is totally incorrect because it uses linear mathematic models to "predict" future events and does not account for time.
George Soros is also of this camp, maybe you've heard of him. He has a couple of those million dollar books you speak of.
Anonymous,
This blog isn't about getting into a debate about the Iraq War. However, I want to make a few brief comments in response to what you said.
**********
Your implication is that the war is attributable to a lack of "critical thinking" on the part of the American Populace.
***********
Given that statistics show that 50% of the American population still thinks Saddam played a role in 9/11, despite the 9/11 report and all the other evidence against this, this criticism of the American populace is well deserved.
*************
But to assert that one position is a "critical thinker's" argument clearly implies that the other is not.
************
I would argue that there is nothing wrong with such an assertion, when one considers the concept known as the "convergence of evidence", along with a careful examination of the arguments used in support of the war as well as the fallacies existent in some of the arguments.
**********
I would say that both political parties and two presidents, Prime Ministers, the CIA, Russian intelligence, etc were fooled by Sadam.
***********
But this is irrelevant to a decision to go to war. Remember, the original justification presented for the war was that Iraq presented an *imminent* threat. This was clearly not the case, even when one considers the bad intelligence. It was the Bush administration that used propaganda to present the idea of an imminent threat despite no evidence to support it.
****************
I would say Iraq was a sponsor of terror and had defied UN Sanctions, butchered its people, etc.
*****************
But now you are shifting the goal posts. Remember, the original justification for the war was that Saddam represented an imminent threat to the U.S. It was only after no WMD's were found, that the administration came up with other post-hoc rationales for the war.
This post-hoc rationale that you have present is basically the rationale that Saddam was a bad guy. But there are plenty of other bad guys and evil dictators out there that the U.S. does nothing about. This, at the very least, shows an inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy, and at worst, shows how the U.S. was trying to find other justifications for the war after the fact when the original justification did not hold true.
************
Respectfully submitted, as I am a fan of what you do here.
***********
Thank you for your comments and I appreciate them.
How are your chart studies coming along, Tort? Have you figured out reversal patterns yet?
No? Aww, that's too bad.
Man chart school would be going great if it wasn't for this fib lines. Things are useless. Just ask an SLP :)
anonym, the reason some people think Iraq was connected to terrorists was bc we handed over one of them so they could torture him in Egypt and he lied about the connection.
Disgustingly, the administration used that lie during torture as a major reason for the war. Along with the lie Iraq was getting aluminum tubes. Everything was either made up to get us to go to war. UN weapons inspector Hans Blitz was "on the ground" in Iraq saying there were NO WMD's just days before we went to war anyway.
lol... this was funny reading all the comments here.
I just want to add that it is a fact that pit traders often look for a 50% retrace. They don't use fib's to get this, they just look at the price and do a simple add/subtract to see if it has retraced 50% or not.
I can see how one could argue that fibs work. The price retraces to the 61.8% or the 38.2% and it has some meaning to those that use fibs. It might be just coincidence or it could be that the larger traders wanted to take it this area for their own entries knowing a bunch of retail traders would pile on.
There are a ton of indicators that folks use to find entries and exits. Not one of them can predict the future price of a stock. Some might be able to make you feel more confident based on past history of what has happened.
I trade with only price and volume and let the tape tell me what is currently going on to try and predict the future direction. I would be an idiot to not respect the fact that many traders are using fib's, bb's, ma's and such to make their decisions.
For that matter most of the folks reading this post could do better throwing darts at a chart to predict the direction than their current methods.
Anyways, your blog somehow came up in one of my searches (maybe a book). I recognized from a while back. Maybe that was some odd coincidence or something.
Post a Comment