|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dear Francois,
Regarding your question of who uses Murrey Math, I've wondered the same
thing. Is anyone actually applying his system? If so, would they like
to come forward and participate in the group?
Some of us get pounds of brochures through the mail promoting various
trading panaceas ranging in cost from a few quick bucks up to several
thousands of dollars. The Murrey Math Trading System, which the author
promotes obliquely through this Metastock List, is no exception.
Personally, I can't see throwing away even $78.00 for a system based on
the following non sequiturs:
If you use the Universal Murrrey [sic] Math Musical Scale of the
Average Life of
Man (since the Flood of Noah to be set to a low "C" Saxaphone [sic] at
437.50 cycles of vibration per second and we double it because all
sounds double and change tones as they get higher in resonnating [sic]
pitch) so we set our Murrey Math Base Line at 875. (437.50 x 2) (for
7th graders) because all sound looks like two 7th grade girls twirling
two jump ropes in opposite directions at the top and the bottom the
lines cross and reverse in opposite directions to go back down into
their Octave of support and resistance....
What does Noah of the Flood have to do with a musical instrument
invented by Adolphe Sax in 1841? Is there some time relationship I'm
missing? Mr. Murrey likes to wax specific, so let's get specific, viz.,
which saxophone does he mean? There are five varieties ranging from
soprano to bass, with their low notes of B-flat---not C as he states.
;-)
On which "low C" is he setting his Murrey Math Base Line---Contra C,
Great C, Small C, One-line C? There are several Cs that qualify,
because there is more than one scheme in use today for the designation
of specific octaves. If he means Middle C1 between the treble and bass
clefs (the closest C to his calculations), he is off by a country mile.
Under the equal temperament tuning system where A=440.00Hz, the tuning
fork pitch the oboe replicates when tuning an orchestra, Middle C1 is
261.62Hz---not 437.50Hz as he states.
Mr. Murray tosses about the terms "tone", "resonance", and "pitch",
glossing over them in the same sentence as if they contributed mutually
to the doubling of frequency at the octave. They are not
interchangeable. Each is a separate factor in acoustics, with
relationships that are not as simply defined as his 7th grade approach
suggests.
Then there is the statement that, "...all sound looks like two 7th grade
girls twirling two jump ropes in opposite directions...." Really
now---all sound? Is Mr. Murrey referring to half of a sine wave, which
could resemble on an oscilloscope a jump rope in the up position? In
music, sine waves are theoretical phenomena produced in the laboratory
with sound generators, but they have no practical value, because lacking
timbre, they are pure sounds, sterile and uninteresting. Definitely not
the way markets behave. I fail to see the connection.
Can musical instruments be compared to trading the markets? It's a
stretch, but as one of Mr. Murrey's great unwashed, I'm open to
learning. Like market noise, each musical instrument has its own
characteristic timbre based upon the prominence of overtones in the
harmonic series. Is this what he is getting at? It's hard to say,
because he won't respond when pressed for details. It would be
instructive if he would give us more information on how saxophones and
girls twirling jump ropes relate to trading.
Is this nit picking? Yes, if these flaws were secondary to Mr. Murrey's
central thesis. But he has told us repeatedly that music is the basis
of his trading system, so would it not be prudent for him to get his
fundamental concepts correct before asking us to commit our money to the
markets---and of course, to his book.
In giving Mr. Murray the benefit of the doubt, I've strained to see how
his ideas relate accurately to cycles in trading, Music of the Spheres,
or anything cyclical of value, hopefully applied with the same rigor
that John Ehlers has to Maximum Entropy Spectral Analysis. But alas,
I've come to the same conclusion as others in this group---that he is
more interested in promoting his book and calling us Jerk Balls when we
don't agree with him than in engaging in meaningful discussion about
trading.
The folks in this list seem to be mature participants pulling together
toward common trading interests. We don't appreciate being berated and
insulted. What I find particularly annoying are the antisocial
outbursts of condescension against the group from this "genius from
Mars" (his words), all in the thinly veiled context of promoting the
Murrey Math Trading System and in urging young people to sign up with
his email service for $20.00. Isn't this against the spirit of the
Metastock List of no commercial promotions by vendors?
Bon jour, Francois, et bonne chance avec votre décision!
Warren Donworth
______________________
francois martin wrote:
>
> Hello to everybody,
>
> I'm french speeking from Montreal so my english is so so, sory for
> writing mistakes. I work 6 days a week at my job and i got 3 children's
> under 5 years old, very busy in this time. I have 1,109 unread message
> from the metastock-list usergroup.
>
> I'm not trading futures, commodites and i don't know anything that the
> fact you have levreage. I read some of the e-mail of (try to
> understand) the man call thMurrey. I'm very open to every style of
> trading. This man seems to have a special one. My question is, does
> anybody had follow, verify his prediction or trade his prediction? Does
> he's so reliable like he's predenting, exact in his supposed prediction?
> I know there's a lot of you who doesn't like him but what about his
> projections, his technic?
>
> Thank's
>
> François Martin
|