|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
OOPS!
I meant Gurdjieff
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Elliott Wave &Gann
> Sonny:
> Let me get up on my soapbox and pontificate [big grin :)]
>
> Reading Gann is like reading Gudjieff. Both are very difficult. Both
wrote
> in an obscure arcane manner and never really clarified their ideas so that
> ordinary mortals could understand. This is also true in other fields, for
> example mathematics (see Ince's books on differential equations, or the
IEEE
> biography of Oliver Heaviside) or academia where some profs delight in
doing
> this to their students.
> If anyone decodes Gann and uncovers the theoretical basis for his methods,
> then they may become useful tools for all of us to use.
>
> The stories of Gann predicting the market crash of 1929 may be just
another
> story. Bear in mind that reporters at that time were terribly underpaid
and
> readily accepted gifts, so that they wrote what they were paid for. All
> these glowing predictions if true should have made Gann the ruler of world
> finance.
>
> A case in point, Warren Buffett amassed a very large fortune by mostly
using
> relatively straightforward methods. Take a look at mutual funds. There
are
> TA oriented funds, fundamental oriented funds, space science type funds,
are
> there any Gann oriented funds and how well are they doing?
>
> Has anyone amassed a large fortune, or even a fortune, by using Gann
methods
> except by selling courses, books or newsletters?
>
> Lionel Issen
> lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Sonnysark@xxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Elliott Wave
>
>
> > Thanks for all the opinions on EW...How does everyone feel about Gann's
> work
> > in comparison? Most would also say Gann studies are also subjective
and
> > complicated. -Sonny-
>
|