|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The problem with min time retracements is the times you are wrong --
opporunity costs. For my money, I would rather rely on Andrews, etc.
than an arbitrary time %. Another axiom I added to this line of
thinking for myself is that the strongest (or weakest as the case may
be) markets will take the least time to complete waves. So the ones
you want the most will be the ones you miss. Yea, sometimes you may
get in at the end of A instead of the end of C, but that is a risk I
would rather take, rather than missing it altogether.
Also, FWIW based on the 6 mo of Griffiths/Miner performance I saw
when I bought the software, they by no means have the holy grail. I
didn't keep track precisely, but I would think they would have been
lucky to break even or make some small $$. I have no regrets about
buying the software -- learned some things with its Gann and Andrews
tools that are worth many times the cost. What I saw of their
execution in the newsletter was at best mediocre though.
Chris
--- In realtraders@xxxx, rosow@xxxx wrote:
> Earl,
> Steve Griffiths used to pound this minimum 38.2% retracement in
my head
> when he was writing for Miner. I figured since he wrote for Miner
he also had
> his blessings (ggg). Here is a pdf file on time & wave 4's.
>
> Lenny
>
> In a message dated 4/22/2001 6:37:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> eadamy@xxxx writes:
>
>
> > My general observation has been that his w.4 time retracement
guidelines
> > tend to be a bit longer than what I see in my trading .. most
typically I
> > see 62%-100% w.4:w.3. Have you seen these RM guidelines and how
did you
> > arrive at the 38% minimum?
> >
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|