Fibonacci levels: myth or reality? - page 3
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
If Fibo levels worked in Forex and other markets, now we would not have so many forums, unsatisfied traders, a lot of TSs and so on. Everyone would be rich and happy owners of the "grail" or the "printing press" ....
Fibs try to apply roughly the same way as the topicstarter's "statistics" suggest - and then "competently" declare that they don't work. A serious Phoebe bot requires tens of kilobytes of code. Not everyone is capable of it (not because I'm stupid, but because impatient, want the money). I, for instance, had no patience at my time to bring EA to mind :)
Fibs try to apply roughly the same way as the topicstarter's "statistics" suggest - and then "competently" declare that they don't work. A serious Phoebe bot requires tens of kilobytes of code. Not everyone is capable of it (not because I'm stupid, but because impatient, want the money). I, for example, did not have enough patience at my time to bring an EA to mind :)
I do not know whether "competent" or not. Competence is like respect, it comes from others.
I don't see anything wrong with using statistics to check the suitability of a method. And it's not about impatience or wanting "money" at all, it's about trying to use your time efficiently. Of course, one can start seriously developing "tens of kilobytes of code" to apply Fibonacci without estimating the probability of a positive result, and spend years on it. But I'm not one of those people. I started this thread not to change public opinion in applicability of Fibonacci levels but to show my statistical results for 10 years of data in order to create a constructive discussion. Yes, I am aware that my first post contained a calculation of levels which is not often used in trading. The second results I have shown here are
'Fibonacci levels: myth or reality?
apply textbook levels and the result is the same. Most responses were like yours, little constructive advice and only bare 'competent' assertions that levels work. Where is the proof? A couple of graphs and references to books or articles is not proof. I was hoping someone would research the statistical significance of Fibonacci levels in forex and share the results with me. But I haven't seen any such constructive feedback yet.
As someone rightly said, it's all about faith. Just like in religion. It is impossible to prove the existence of God, so everyone chooses to believe or not. Fibonacci sounds like a religion. And it looks like I got inquisitioned by "believers".
Gentlemen, does anyone use Fibo to predict price movements? ... i.e. we assume the price has reversed and make target prediction based on the assumption that the first stop of the movement is at 23% ... ... we draw the fibo from the pivot point to the void, trying to reach the alignment of the 23% level with the first "step" ... ?
... below is my "speedometer" ... zero - stop of price movement, I use these "zeros" to tie the Fibo level ... The method is certainly crude, but it suits me quite well as an approximate forecast of the end of movement and "stop"-goal.
gpwr, I'm not trying to play the role of inquisitor, God forbid. But I myself can only refer to Miner's book "Dynamic programmer" here, as I don't have the statistical results either. The problem is exactly collecting these statistics. The basics of the strategy I was trying to do, I already stated here. Actually it shows that statistics is very difficult to collect: predicted bounce levels or reversals of price are calculated as a result of cluster analysis of quite a dense dynamically changing in time grid of Fibo levels of different time scales (I have at least three different TFs). And only in the simplest case this grid is one-dimensional, because another grid can be superimposed on it - by time.
It turns out that in coding all this madness I was moving blindly. And apparently this isn't the final option: you can also plug in multicurrency here to be more sure. This is where the real madness begins.
On the other hand, there, in nen's Corner, you can find a lot of information about what works out of Fib.
I don't know whether it's "competent" or not. Competence is like respect, it comes from others.
I don't see anything wrong with using statistics to test the suitability of a method. And it's not about impatience or wanting "money" at all, it's about trying to use your time efficiently. Of course, one can start seriously to develop "tens of kilobytes of code" for Fibonacci applications without estimating probability of a positive result and spend years on it. But I'm not one of those people. I started this thread not to change public opinion in applicability of Fibonacci levels but to show my statistical results for 10 years of data in order to create a constructive discussion. Yes, I am aware that my first post contained a calculation of levels which is not often used in trading. The second results I have shown here are
'Fibonacci levels: myth or reality?
apply textbook levels and the result is the same. Most responses were like yours, little constructive advice and only bare 'competent' assertions that levels work. Where is the proof? A couple of graphs and references to books or articles is not proof. I was hoping someone would research the statistical significance of Fibonacci levels in forex and share the results with me. But I haven't seen any such constructive feedback yet.
As someone correctly said here, it's all about faith. Just like in religion. It is impossible to prove the existence of God, so everyone chooses to believe or not. Fibonacci sounds like a religion. And it looks like I got inquisitioned by "believers".
We'll see about that.
Mathemat is right. It's really hard to apply phibs intelligently. All fractals have to be taken into account. From each! fractal there is one or the other movement. Fractals are the starting points for fibs. From the beginning of the trend is the most important fractal. From the beginning of a trend, a fractal grid should be checked against each opposite fractal.
Fractals appearing after the trend start also give their reference points for the formation of a fib. Also from the opposite - all! - Fractals start a corrective movement or reversal with its own fibs. The standard zigzag cannot correctly catch fractals. It catches only those fractals which correspond to the settings of the zigzag. It is also necessary to separate - this is a rough way to put it - fractals on different timeframes. It is better to start separating fractals from the highest timeframes. And then go down to the timeframe where the trading takes place. Fractals from the higher timeframes are more significant. It results in the separation of fractals by levels. Also, we should consider fractals starting from higher timeframes. And not only fibs. ALL! graphical tools must be applied in this order.
1) The most important point - the beginning of the trend. The next points before the end of the trend are secondary.
2) Formations should be drawn and considered starting from the oldest timeframe.
----
Now imagine how many levels will be drawn in this process. The statistics based on one timeframe does not properly consider the influence of the levels of higher timeframes.
Statistical studies such as the one presented at the beginning of this thread appear on forums quite periodically. An example of such statistics is given a little earlier at the first link to ONYX. There Quod Licet conducts quite a serious research using special statistical software, using its own developments. But as well as in this thread he conducted a bit of superficial research. But now the research is on a different level... Maybe something will be published.
----
It is difficult to do research considering what was said at the beginning of this post. You have to do special programs. Few people want to do this kind of research. Unless the researcher is "put on the payroll". This means paying for the research. In this case, the results may be more credible. But in this case, both the client and the researcher need to be keenly interested in obtaining exhaustive results. A more "scientific" approach is needed here.
----
That's a tough one. But...
----
In all seriousness. How can you trust research that doesn't take all of the above into account?
----
Once again. When any kind of zig-zag market research is conducted, the results of the research should be treated more as a study of zig-zag properties. And to a lesser extent as a study of market properties. To some extent, the market is being investigated here too. But to what extent? - This question should be answered with the utmost honesty.
Every conclusion has an effect on the future work. First of all, everyone must answer the question honestly: is what I am saying really true? Or have I not had the courage to look into it fully?
The author of the thread is the only one who has given an argument for his claim. The rest are blah, blah, blah....
The question of the existence of any levels at all has been investigated, not Fibo specifically. The result showed that such levels simply do not exist, whence, in particular, follows the non-existence of Fibo levels.
Let everyone remember where he learned about the magic Fibo levels. It must have occurred to anyone that perhaps there are some levels. It was adequate to check this hypothesis at once by the author's method, from where to discard this idea. But few people seem to have done such research.
I agree, the author has completely simplified, but the logic is metallic. Take different periods, build not 2D, but 3D graphs, where on the third coordinate will be the minimum step for the zigzag and look at the result.
Someone started talking about Fibo and golden sections and everyone took it for granted. Here are the lined charts of individual cases. The profit does not depend on the number of lines.
People are acting strangely:
They hear about Khrenovsky's method, that it works for someone else, and start making this method work for themselves. And almost no one can reasonably say whether it is nonsense or not.
After all, Fibo is a simple statement, and inflated....