|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
OK, here we go again, :)
RJ Ratchford wrote:
>
> Walt Downs wrote:
>
> > Rick,
> >
> > I don't think you give traders on this forum much credit for
> > intelligence. :)
>
> RR: Interesting. Then why are we getting a daily lesson on TREX?
WD: Geez Rick, I'm sorry. I thought this was an OPEN forum for the
exchange and discussion of trading ideas. ALL trading ideas :)
WD: I believe that I have adequately defined and described the
differences
between the methodologies. (TREX and Fibbergannie methodologies)
RR: I'm afraid that by your statement of Fib/Gann trading dealing with
'dead' points clearly illustrates that you are not qualified to speak on
behalf of that method, and for me not to bring this fact out is in
effect stating that I agree, which I clearly don't.
WD:
(Rolling on the floor laughing.)
WD: In my original post, I clearly defined what I felt constituted
"living" and "dead" ratios. (Looking around.) You seem to have left
this out of your re-post. :)
WD: Anyone making even a token attempt to
honestly evaluate the differences would have no problem.
> RR: Could that be the problem here that only a 'token' attempt is being made?
WD: On your part? Yes I believe so. Really Rick, let's compare what we
have been looking at:
I stated that because of an exhaustive long term statistical analysis
of Fibonacci and Gann ratios, I had concluded that when used by
themselves, they were not enough to trade with.
I believe your response was: "I dare anbody to show anything better!"
In response, I posted a chart showing an interesting new idea in
trading called TREX, which did indeed appear to be more effective
than Fib or Gann projections
I believe your response was: A 2 post rant about window sizes
and the list goes on from there (and on and on and on and on)
RR: I did not invent it. Fibonacci and Gann are works
> preceeding my existence on this planet. They have survived the test of
> time. No, I don't need to defend the method I've chosen to use. But
> since TREX is your pet project, and has never been proven to the degree
> that Fib or Gann has, who really has to try hard to prove?
WD: Well Rick, I suppose you are the only one that can answer that
question. :) Yes, many people have believed for many years that FIb
and Gann are valid. People also believed for many years that the
world was flat :)
There, there little fibbergannie, I understand, I know your methodology
keeps you up at nights, so I will try not to wear on you with ideas
that might be new or different.
As to your amazing acrobatic gyrations during our discussions, wow,
almost as numerous as all thos Fib and Gann numbers on your charts
:)
Don't worry Rick, if the trading doesn't work out for you, with all
those numbers, you can always play Bingo. :)
Walt Downs
CIS Trading
|