|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
----- Original Message -----
From: <brigitte@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Bill Wynne" <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: chaos theory
> Give the guy a break
Hang on there: I was defending Elliott and Prechter, while
also stating the facts.
- if his predictions began to materialize in
> 2000, history will show that he was off by about 5 years.
Well, it's really (a fibo ;-)) 13 years off, and 400%+ basis the Dow.
RP thought it was all done in 1987 near Dow 2740. In fact, I faxed
Bob charts circa 1987-88 wondering if that crash low was a "two"
with a "third wave" up yet to come. Obviously Prechter did not
think so.
>Anyone who
> has the courage to make forecasts which span three centuries should be
> allowed an error margin of a few years. It may be equivalent to
> being off by 1 min picking the time of an intraday top.
I'm a fan, I like Prechter, and I believe Elliott Wave has value, but I've
heard
missing the biggest bull market in history was a huge disappointment even to
Prechter. Moreover, when the best from the 1980's misses 1000%+ in the
NASDAQ in the 1990's it points out the fact that Elliott is subjective.
When Prechter's newsletter comes out he's not talking where the market will
be in 300 years, he's talking where to put your money NOW. Being off a few
100% is a big deal.
> If you understand Elliott Wave Theory, you understand its benefits as
> well as its limitations. Prechter's "bad calls for the 90's" neither
> invalidate him nor his method.
I never said it invalidated him, but as Prechter said Elliott discovered "A"
secret to
the Universe, not "THE" secret. It may turn out Prechter is right about
the big picture, but as I write the DJI is still 300%+ above the 1987
"top," and it's above other "tops" as well. From a traders perspective
that's
a big "limitation."
> Prechter is brilliant, a true scientist and a non-conformist who has
> the courage to put his convictions on the line.
I agree Prechter is brilliant, but Elliott Wave is part art as well as
science.
Don't get me wrong, lots of other legitimate science is part "theory." We
make the best guess based on limited data and/or complex situations.
>Mandelbrot is a
> desperate plagiarist attempting to rationalize his misdeed.
Geez, I said:
"Parts of his [Mandelbrot's] book look like they were copied from Elliott's
1930's work or Prechter and Frost's 1970's book."
My original post:
":-)
Elliott Wave Principle---Frost and Prechter: Fractals
and fibos too for about $20..."
It's a good read, even if you don't buy the whole concept.
BW
>
>
> BAK
>
>
> you wrote:
>
> >FWIW, my smirk here was nothing personal, rather
> >directed @ Mandelbrot who claimed to "discover"
> >the fractal nature of the markets. Parts of his
> >book look like they were copied from Elliott's
> >1930's work or Prechter and Frost's 1970's book.
> >That he used Elliott in his 1990's work is fine,
> >to not acknowledge where the ideas came from....
> >well, it's at least worth a smile.
>
> >BW
>
> >PS: Has Mandelbrot ever traded? For better or worse
> >Prechter does have an actual (brief) real time, real money
> >track record from circa the early 1980's to go along
> >with his consistently bad calls for the 1990's.
>
>
>
>
|