|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
To me, there are two practical problems with fib #s on their own: 1)
lack of consistent precision -- people still put stops just beyond
them, tempting the boys to run them when they can. So while they are
sometimes precise enough to be useful, it isn't consistent. Also,
there are times when log scale works and times when lin does. 2) How
do you decide which fib # is going to work? Sometimes clusters help,
but not consistently.
I have come to respect angular geometry techniques like Andrews more
than fib for turning points. Much more precise. Amazingly, there is
usually an Andrews reason for those turns just above, just below, or
nowhere near fib #s. I still look at fibs, but as a secondary
consideration.
I don't know how this could ever be tested other than manually
though, not in TS anyway. The code for the best fit for Andrews
would be pretty darn big.
Chris
--- In realtraders@xxxx, "Dan Harels" <harelsdb@xxxx> wrote:
> This is directed to Research, however, I encourage others with
insights to
> reply.
>
> In a previous post, Research indicated that he is fond of figuring
things
> out and that a good share of his trading profits go towards
computational
> power. Mr. Research has established his credibility in my mind and
I am
> curious if he has performed any studies related to the statistical
validity,
> from a trading point of view, of Fibonacci retracements and
expansions. Any
> information he cares to share on this subject will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
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/
|