Breaking through the morning flat - page 20
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
Why can Fibo work? It is a well-known methodology, whether it works or not is not important in this case. What is important is that there is a significant number of market participants who believe it works. These participants regularly place this grid and act according to its levels. If on a given trading day the initial levels for setting the grid look equally definite to a considerable audience, they will build approximately the same grids and trade on approximately the same levels. Fibo levels become self-fulfilling predictions, the level works not because 161 or the golden ratio, but because the crowd believes that the level is important and acts on it. Fibo levels have nothing to do with mathematics, they are a behavioural pattern.
The problems with using Fibo are several. First, the rules of grid layout are ambiguous, and believers in Fibo may have different grids pulled simultaneously, which means there will be no friendly behavior and Fibo levels will not work. Second, when anti-Fibo forces come into play, like central bankers and/or financial mathematicians in investment/hedge funds, they break the equation and even the correctest and most similar phibo stops working. Both problems are very common, that's why there are more cases when phiba doesn't work than when it does.
By the way, I am also inclined to believe this may be the reason for the failure of popular levels!
By the way, if large banks also believe in this, then orders on levels work out well!
as pennies with deposits in the region of 10k - 100 - 300k will not be pushed away from the level
But millions to billions will work!
--
and 161 it is just an observation
proven by my history since 1999 ... I didn't write the software, I checked it by hand
--
the rules of the grid are known - on impulses... but ambiguous
if a deposit of $10 has different impulses, those who have millions or more - their impulses are different
--
and central banks break any levels and any other nice definitions
- even for those who trade without fibo, it breaks the roof and breaks any definition
this is not an argument against fibo
--
if levels are predictable why dont we use them
if the percentage of hits from a properly stretched fibo is high enough
I cited quite a few screens where takei were based on fibo and were worked out based on fibo targets at reversals
---
at least here it's tightened correctly and there's a bounce or, a delay at the levels
so you can decide to exit or not - and it's better to exit at a level than to wait and get a reversal and exit later
or exit before it's reached.
--
seems to have backed it up provably and obviouslyIf levels are predictable in any way, why not use it?
if the percentage of a hit from a properly stretched fibo is high enough
I cited quite a few screenshots where takei were calculated by fibo and worked out by fibo targets at the reversals
...
sort of backed up provably and obviouslyAny number of screenshots are NOT proof of anything but your diligence. Against them you could have cited many more screens where the phibo didn't work out. Screens are good for impressionable girls. You don't need screenshots for real evidence. "Percentages are high enough" is not an indicator, it's blah blah blah, coffee grounds guessing with a bit of luck.
"Proof and obvious" would be if you formalise the fiba rule of arrangement and run it through the whole story on all instruments. If the percentage of return on invested money is statistically significant and higher than the bank's interest, then YES - provable.
I think I've proved it clearly and provably
Oh, for crying out loud! Do you hear anyone else but yourself?! I'm not the only one who says that screenshots can't be any proof. Stop smearing the word "proof" next to your screenshots. Screenshots only show that you were lucky at the time you traded. Whether it's a phibe or a coin, only a gopher knows.
And if you suddenly want to really gather proof for confirming the robustness of trading on Fibo levels (this is very, very hard, and the result may discourage, most likely, will discourage), then study the methodology and stop hypnotizing us with screenshots.
Эти участники регулярно расставляют эту сетку и действуют в соответствии с её уровнями. Если в данный торговый день изначальные уровни для установки сетки выглядят одинаково определённо для значительной аудитории, то они построят примерно одинаковые сетки и будут торговать по примерно одинаковым уровням.
There is some merit to this, but it is a fact that the placement of levels is ambiguous. It's easy to see that, in the trading room. We carried out such an experiment. Only three out of more than 20 traders had similar "stretching", and that was from the obvious maximum to the obvious minimum. All the rest of us did it their way.
on the rationale for the phiba is a good thread http://forex.kbpauk.ru/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=trading&Number=50041&Searchpage=1&Main=49903
and http://club.investo.ru/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=49884
Here http://solidbase.kare lia.ru/edu/meth_calc/files/12.shtm is the algorithm itself for finding an extremum. The point is that the market is always looking for supply and demand balance levels with maximum liquidity, and iterations with steps proportional to the fib are the fastest way to find it
yes and 161 this is just one observation
I checked it on history since 1999 ... I wrote the software, I didn't check it by hand
Software in the studio :) . The lower I read, the less I believe it.
and central banks break any levels and any other nice definitions
- even those who trade without any fibo have a breaking point.
this is not an argument against fibo
Gg :) even if phibs don't work it's not an argument against phibs :) Bravo!
you don't have to worry about fibo if levels are predictable
if the percentage of hits from a properly drawn fibo is high enough
I cited quite a few screens where takeoffs were set at fibo and were worked out at fibo targets at reversals
--
kinda backed it up provably and obviouslyYou're some kind of programmer, aren't you? Aren't you ashamed to use such evidence?
Any number of screenshots are NOT proof of anything other than your hard work. You could cite many more screenshots against them where the phiba didn't work. Screens are good for impressionable girls. You don't need screenshots for real evidence. "Percentages are high enough" is not an indicator, it's blah blah blah, coffee grounds guessing with a bit of luck.
"Proof and obvious" would be if you formalise the fiba arrangement rule and run it through the whole story on all instruments. If the rate of return on the money invested is statistically significant and higher than the bank interest, then YES - provable.
this all makes sense logically... the hardest part is getting the phibe right...
and true -- you can find a lot of points where phiba doesn't work
One screen with a correctly screwed phybe, and worked out levels, of course, is not proof
--
well kinda get guessing for 3 months with doubling the depo, a little bit of course... "probably lucky"...
and we are working on a formalized TS with a quite formalized fiba setting rule
it's the semiautomatic entry that does the entering... and the take stops are calculated by the semiautomatic device
and there is no assertion that every day he does it correctly and that every day he bets correctly
otherwise it would be, you know...
for me it is quite enough of what we have
--the opposite assertion - yours - is also unsubstantiated and unproven
in this case just reasoning.... which can also be answered
that they are .... blah - blah...
--
because there is no explicit rebuttal either, with calculations, justifications and theories
proving that phiba doesn't work at all, you don't have
>> software in the studio :) ....
Andrei, can you send the hard disk at once
--
because there's no explicit proof backwards either, no calculations, no justifications, no theories.
proving that fiba doesn't work, you don't have
But please don't lower yourself to the level of the kindergarten, "you're a fool" type of thing. In science there is a presumption of guilt - if scientifically it is not proved that the method works, then it does not work. Moreover, it has not only been proven, but also double-checked by other researchers. Do you want to be operated on by a doctor using some trendy method that has no proof that it works, or would you prefer something less trendy, something that has been proven a thousand times over?
In fact, the "golden ratio" method, supposedly based on Fibo number, is no better than the "half division" method. It is just that the "golden ratio" divides the segment into two unequal parts, one of which is equal to 0.61..., while the "half division" divides it in half. The statement that this "golden ratio" ensures the fastest search is not correct. By the way, the search methods in the lists uses precisely a half division, no one there by the golden ratio does not divide anything. It is proven that for a random set it is half division that provides the fastest search speed.
That's not my claim, it's Akelo's in the link above
"
.....
Well, then there is the classical theorem - if a unimodular function is given on a segment, there is no faster algorithm for determining its extremum, except for dividing the segment by the golden ratio."