a trading strategy based on Elliott Wave Theory - page 144
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Elliott's theory is the same "magic eye" for seeing the market. All it takes is a manual and a few minutes of practice :-)))
And all this was required because there was simply no more accurate theory. As soon as Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation, it became clear that the planets orbit the Sun not in circular, but in elliptical orbits. Polycyclic systems fell apart like a house of cards and everything fell into place.
This marvellous classification of the patterns which Alex has given reminds me very much of a polycycle story in its complexity, depth, unformalizability and incomprehensibility in the head. Alex, everything brilliant is simple. What we cannot say about the construction you have outlined. It lacks one thing, a set of fundamental principles from which both qualitative and quantitative conclusions can be drawn.
I don't mean to criticize your post, but I can't disagree with Begun. From my point of view there is only one fundamental principle in EWT - what Begun identified as 1) - the recognition of the fractal structure of the market. But not only has EWT failed to get anything constructive out of it, it hasn't even been able to maintain it. Otherwise it wouldn't have clung so tenaciously to the 5-3 pattern.
Alex, I suggest you do some simple research. Take a fairly large piece of history, break it into waves of a shallow structure (at least using the zigzag, with which you are already familiar), form from it the waves of a larger structure. As a result, you will get the trend sections. And then just count the percentage of times you get a pattern of 5 waves up - 3 waves down, or vice versa. I promise you will be disappointed.
I don't know what everyone is forgetting, but you are definitely forgetting that the controversy here is around the question of a theory that is capable of predicting the market with a certain level of certainty. If there is such a theory, humans are not needed and the whole prediction procedure can be algorithmized and programmed. That is exactly what Alex is trying to do.
And you, as far as I understand it, don't need it. Thanks to EWT you now have magic eye and using it you can successfully trade hands. That's great, but it doesn't mean that EWT is a theory. It just means that for you, EWT has served as the catalyst that opens the way to intuition, to vision. And others need coffee grounds, cards, a lump of sugar or whatever .... Believe me, there is not the slightest bit of irony here. Human capabilities are still unexplored and it does not matter at all what opens the way for their manifestation.
But on the subject of EWT you still haven't managed to argue in any meaningful way.
Here we go... Someone knows more about you (me) than I do :-(
I am again being told that I have forgotten something...
It's like that joke again: "Do you believe your eyes more than me?" :-)
Maybe a person would come in handy at least to algorithmize and prahromize?
I can even imagine how to do it. Even told you a little. But to show and prove ... I'm sorry. As one well-known programmer here says - "go on your own". Even look for books - by yourself!
Oh dearie me, it's entirely your prerogative to point out things to others.
And the key word in this statement is obviously "a little". Indeed, you've said very little here.
However, it's our fault. We didn't ask you to show us anything. All the more to prove it.
This polemic is just an exchange of opinions. No one is proving anything to anyone. There is no need.
So rest easy, you are dismissed (I mean you are free to keep your IMHO to yourself).
I've described the theory in general terms, as you've asked, please take it from there.
I can't write better than in the book, that's why I sent you to the relevant literature.
Once again, you don't need to re-create the bicycle to make a discovery...
I mean that theory alone is not enough for successful trading!
I gave an example of an aeroplane that needs two small parts - flaps - for it to take off.
Prior to this discovery was created a huge number of machines that could not take off, ie essentially useless!
To make something "work" you do not need to come up with a whole theory,
it should be finalized and only after that "updated", already your "creation" will begin to bring dividends.
Dear Begun, that's probably the only thing I agree with.
I have previously posted a Statment with manual trading results as an example.
You probably understand that I'm not going to prove anything to anyone.
I just do not see the point.
Respectfully,
Alexey.
Everything I have written you can find and check yourself, but you have to work, take so much time... and look for it first...
Everyone forgets that Elliott made his discovery (great or mediocre) on a millimeter with a logarithmic ruler in his hands...
I fully agree with Gorillych'.
Many people find it easier to deny everything than to "waste time" studying and checking.
2) Begun
Your sentence in 2 words to explain the Wave Theory is similar to a situation where
You with "zero knowledge" get behind the wheel of a Boeing for the 1st time and ask for a 2-word
B in 2 words how to get from point A to point B.
When you're told you don't have a clue about which terms you know nothing about, you start
saying that planes don't fly and that you'll believe it if you're told 30 times in a row.
I have been studying Wave Theory for more than 3 years and have not fully grasped all the points.
Only your desire and aspiration can bring positive results!
I wish you luck.
Sincerely,
Aleksey.
That's what you call wanting to share knowledge you don't have.
This polemic is merely an exchange of opinion.
I have never considered my opinion to be an IMMEDIATE one. Others often do not like it, so I do not use this abbreviation for a long time. You are free to have your own opinion :-)
Pictures in 3D are a cool and interesting topic. I can't think of a brighter example, I mean the analogy of the Wave Theory with the "magic eye".
I wrote earlier, that regardless of the scale, figures have the same geometric structure, and the eye is trained to identify standard and non-standard figures out of monowave flow.
The idea was to write a program that will recognize in time the shapes to be formed, and accordingly, to enter and leave the market at the "best" moments.
Gorillych, I recommend "Supermind" and "Textbook of fast reading" by Tony and Barry Busen, I think you will not regret. These books complement the three-dimensional picture book topic you raised.
It's nice to finally have someone who understands you :-)
Regards,
Alexey