|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Clyde,
Yes your use of a 21-bar, has mirrored the pivots off the top I that showed
in my gif, however in looking at your pivot selection going backwards from
there some questions arrise that I believe causes your "study" of fib's in
this case, to be flawed.
Let me start by saying points A, B and C are not ones I would used in the
fashion you showed? For simplicity I have attached a gif that labels the
pivots your study used from 1996 and after. Your letters are in blue, my
numbers are in red.
Speaking of retracements only for the moment:
I would have looked for a retracement from my #1 (your pivot B) to a rally
pivot #2 in early 1997 though (a pivot the study did not select). As it
turned out it was almost exactly .382.
>From the pivot low in early 1997 my pivot #3 (a pivot the study did not
select) the next one I would have used would have been the rally high in Oct
1997 my pivot #4 (your pivot C), the subsequent retracement in late Oct 1997
my point #5 (your pivot D) was very close to a .50.
Then from there I would have gone "back" to the pivot low in early 1997 my
#3 (a pivot the study did not select) to my point #6 (your pivot E), the
retracement from there to my point #7 (your pivot F) fell "between" .50 and
.618 (but still a useful retracement from a trading perspective, ala "ranges
of retracements").
Next I would have used my pivott #7 (your pivot F) to pivot #8 (your pivot
G), the retracement to pivot #9 (your pivot H) was very close to a .382
(.375 per your study).
This illustrates, doesn't it, the the point I have repeatly tried to make.
The analysis you are presenting, although it does include pivots from the
High I would have used, it does not contain certain "others" prior, that I
would have used or in "the way" I would have used them (going backward to a
prior one to measusre and expanded range).
Additionally, am I correct in saying that the number at C (5.015) represents
its relationship of BC to AB? If so as mentioned the number is not a valid
extension from pivots that should be used. Also it is not being used in the
manner that I would have done it (comparing one leg to the prior leg). That
is not how fib "expansions" are done. Again correct me if I am not
understanding "that aspect" of what you are doing.
I know you are indeed the master of pivots, however in this very small
sample your system is not picking the correct ones or using them in a way I
would use them. Thus as you move even further backwards, which it appears
you did, the error compounds itself. I stand on what I have said from the
very beginning, to date you are not able to program the fib's in a manner
that they are used by those who use them. If you shrink your "bar count" to
pick up the missing pivots, then I would think the study will not look at
the ones off the top the way I illustrated them. It could not be any
clearer to me after looking at the example you presented. The study is
unable to duplicate fibs in the manner that at least I use them in real
time trading, therefore the results are meaningless.
I would agree, going forward with this is fruitless.
Good luck and good trading Clyde, your efforts are appreciated.
don ewers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Lee" <clydelee@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Why Fibonacci Numbers work and Number crunching doesn't
> Don,
>
> I am not arguing that you are wrong in using something that you
> believe in.
>
> What I am saying is that you see what you want to see when you
> want to see it and ignore all other evidence.
>
> I have taken the SPC over the time period you posted as an attachment
> to your following post.
>
> I used an automatic pivot picking based on the behavior of prices over
> a 21 bar interval and I believe this duplicates your pivots, if not
exactly
> then so damn close that if it were a train I would not like to be that
close
> to it.
>
> Now, given these pivots I have computed ratios of legs back to 1996 and
> posted these ratios at the end of each leg Junk.gif. More ratios of more
> legs were computed and are in a file/picture attached.
>
> I also made a plot of these data sorted by ratio and Junk0.gif is a
> picture
> of the details of these computations and the graph of the ratios so
sorted.
>
> I now ask that you examine A-L-L of these legs and defend your position
> relative to the value and determination of FIB numbers.
>
> The attached file contains the detail of these computations.
>
> Please understand, I'm saying that on a consistent overall basis over even
> reasonable size samples the FIB concept of leg price/time length as a
> function of the prior leg is not valid.
>
> I think this horse has been ridden as long as it should be. Those of you
> who believe that you have developed a method of using fibs should take
> the time to try to provide us with an insight to how/why/when you use
> them and what you expect from such use.
>
> If there is some special technique for picking pivots for computations of
> Fib points then it would be wonderful if you could define such methods
> so that those of us who are doubtful could truly evaluate what you say
> you do.
>
> Unless something entirely new comes up on this subject then I am
> through with this subject.
>
>
> Clyde
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
> SYTECH Corporation email: clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Office: (713) 783-9540
> Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
> Details at: www.theswingmachine.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Ewers" <dbewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [RT] Why Fibonacci Numbers work and Number crunching doesn't
>
>
> > Clyde,
> > It is not a very few examples, as you have "continued to state".
> >
> > Your posisition seems to be, if you can't "program it", it does not
exist?
> >
> > I say, every day, in every time frame, I use it constantly, almost more
> than
> > any other tool. What you call " isolated" occurs all the time, and it
is
> > "not isolated"?
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 6/5/02
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save on REALTOR Fees
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
Attachment:
Description: "SPCfibo.gif"
|