Fibonacci levels: myth or reality? - page 7
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
A little more estimated movement
movement 161 is very stable repeating
the hardest thing is to find the points on which to hang the fib! - but that comes with time.
Again I'm talking about probable destination, not a guaranteed one.
Similarly, I use phibs a lot.
I also agree that anchor points become clearer with experience.
In general I agree with everything Yuri says. I should add that I also use other levels.
I will also add. Larry Pesavento on the Yensin website, while talking about his patterns, mentioned that you should do a 4% tolerance on fibs. That is, within 4% + - from the level of the phiba, the effect of the phiba will show. In practical terms, it looks as follows. I have to close positions a little short of the target phibe. >> No need to be greedy and catch all my pips.
Similarly, I often use phoebes.
I also agree that anchor points become clearer with experience.
In general, I agree with everything Yuri said. I should add that I use other levels as well.
I will also add. Larry Pesavento on the Yensin website, while talking about his patterns, mentioned that you should do a 4% tolerance on fibs. That is, within 4% + - from the level of the phiba, the effect of the phiba will show up. In practical terms, it looks as follows. I have to close positions a little short of the target phibe. Do not be greedy and catch every pip.
I join in.
At least someone drew something.
The rest have hee hah hah or empty charts.
They measure the tails of candles and the figures in zigzags.
Similarly, I often use phoebes.
I also agree that anchor points become clearer with experience.
In general, I agree with everything Yuri said. I should add that I use other levels as well.
I will also add. Larry Pesavento on the Yensin website, while talking about his patterns, mentioned that you should do a 4% tolerance on fibs. That is, within 4% + - from the level of the phiba, the effect of the phiba will appear. In practical terms, it looks as follows. I have to close positions a little short of the target phibe. No need to be greedy and catch all pips.
If you apply this 4 percent rule to fibs, then fibo levels will automatically cease to be fibo levels. Of course, when something doesn't work, you can adjust it to work in this uncomplicated way. Manual and semi-automatic trading is one thing, automatic is quite another. The author of the thread has provided clear proof of the non-existence of any advantageous levels, include Fibo. The dissatisfied proof has not constructively cited anything. Screenshots of individual cases are not any confirmation of the hypothesis. You will also find how brilliantly the N level works...
The author of the thread has not provided clear evidence. It's not proof at all. It is sophistry. And 4% is very little.
Suppose the base - the distance between the points to which the fibo grid is pegged - is 100 pips. For the 61.8 Fibo level 4% would be just under 2.5 points. Would a deviation of 2.5 pips have a big impact on the Fibo level?
mql4com, you have been shown how to work with Fibo levels. If you don't like it, don't work. I, for example, do not use any wizards, stochastics, RSI and other similar indicators, digital filters, neural networks... . Only graphical constructions. Fibs refer to graphical constructions.
The author of the thread has not provided clear evidence. It's not proof at all. It is sophistry. And 4% is very little.
Suppose the base - the distance between the points to which the fibo grid is pegged - is 100 pips. For the 61.8 Fibo level 4% would be just under 2.5 points. A deviation of 2.5 pips would greatly affect the Fibo level?
The example is nonsense, with your 4 percent it turns out that the Fibo level is any value in the 57.8%-65% range.
The application of Fibo levels is nowhere justified, nor is the application of any other levels justified.
Seeing what you want to see is what you do. Include your head, and again remember where you first heard about these levels and how you convinced yourself of their workability. If there had been mention of other levels in that primary source of yours, you would be saying now that they work.
When you say that with experience you've learned to find points that can be used to build working levels, it has nothing to do with levels. Levels are built from extrema. If you introduce fractals and other works of art, those are pure filters that are justified only by the fact that you have seen tens and hundreds of places where it is justified. About the thousands of places where it doesn't work, you convince yourself that it doesn't.
The power of self-conviction is a great power.
The author of the thread has not provided clear evidence. It's not proof at all. It is sophistry. And 4% is very little.
Suppose the base - the distance between the points to which the fibo grid is pegged - is 100 pips. For the 61.8 Fibo level 4% would be just under 2.5 points. Would a deviation of 2.5 pips affect the Fibo level considerably?
I think I made a pretty clear proof of that. The probability plots of the different levels were shown. I expected sharp spikes at 23.6, 38.2, 50, 61.8... or in their vicinity. No peaks, no spikes, no bumps to be seen. Only measurement noise superimposed on the smooth spreading curve. As a result, I concluded that Fibo levels do not differ from others in terms of probability. Even if I take +/-4% windows near those levels, the probability is still the same as outside those windows. The opposite question. Let's unwind Fibo levels 38.2 and 50 to 36.6...39.7 and 48...52 (-4%...+4%). If these levels were more frequent than 39.7...48, wouldn't that mean that the histogram would show a much lower probability at these non-fibo levels?
If we unwind the levels wider, all the values would become Fibo.
The power of self-confidence is a great power.
The same can be said about you. >> So, the same is true for you. Some people have shown you how they are using these Fibs in real trading, and you keep repeating that "it can't be, because it can never be".
Similar arguments of the main sceptics:
FOXXXi wrote(a) >> No matter how you spin it, the price will reach somewhere. 23 or 38, it doesn't matter. And if it's between them, then you can ignore it.
mql4com wrote(a) >> Why everybody likes Fibo-levels - not clear, because one can take any levels between them.
I've written before that it's not about one 38 or 62 from one swing, it's about a cluster of levels. If you don't read it, don't. It has long been clear to me that the Fibs are about faith. But here's the interesting thing: there are people who successfully use these Fibs...
The same can be said for you. Several people have already shown you how they use Fibs in real trading, while you keep saying that "it cannot be, because it can never be".
Similar arguments from the main sceptics:
I've written before that it's not about one 38 or 62 from one swing, it's about a cluster of levels. If you don't read it, don't. It has long been clear to me that the Fibs are about faith. But here's what's interesting: there are people who successfully use these Fibs...
Do you have arguments concerning the applicability of Fibo levels for automated trading? Why do you defend them so much, internal complexes prevent you from looking at it sensibly?
Let's then look at Khrenovsky's hypothesis: 20% and 40% levels work, and smash it to smithereens. After all, these are not holy fibo levels, just Khrenovsky levels. How shall we break them? By the simple method of the author of this topic.
It's not about Fibo, but in general about how people take for granted everything they write in books. For some reason it does not occur to them to check it. Once again, remember where you first heard about Fibo applied to financial markets and think about what would happen if there were different levels. People started to talk about level clusters because the classical Fibo Hypothesis did not work. But the enthusiasts are persistent, coming up with new rules-filters at the level of descriptive geometry. The same goes for wizards, stochastics and similar nonsense, as well as Elliott waves, various forks, fractals, patterns, etc.
Again, when someone trading on a semi-automated machine claims that their system works, it's a lie because the system has no clear rules and is highly subjective. And therefore is not even a system.
Public examples of effective use of SIMPLE systems:
- Prizmal(ATC 2008) - overnight EURGBP pips.
- Trefolev (PAMM Alpari) - working overnight on CAD-crosses.
- Nikolaev (FXDD competition) - time-limited work on CAD-crosses.
.
Public examples of the effective use of LOCK systems:
- Better (ATC 2007)?