Fibonacci levels: myth or reality? - page 15
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 continuation of http://www.onix-trade.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=85972 for those interested
Time>
There's the theory of expansion. it's where the fibo levels dance well.
You can't take over everything at once. there's a limit to resources.
that's what's reflected in the proportion...
;)
If you look hard enough you can find this section where it doesn't exist.)
If liquidity allows - you will not just find it, but build on it. first the first step...
Then rethink it - do the second.
And then (according to Taleb -:) "Black Swan".
The pullback - again at the 62% Fibo.
;)
There's the theory of expansion. it's where the fibo levels dance well.
You can't take over everything at once. there's a limit to resources.
that's what's reflected in the proportion...
;)
Well said. And the next message is a good one.
We've been talking a lot of water here - Fibo advocates say that everything works for them, but they cannot show statistics (probably because they use fuzzi logic to find anchor points and inflate Fibo levels until price itself falls on them). It's hard to change my mind here, and I don't want to. If you successfully use Fibo, good. The ZigZag I use is based on low level fractals. You may use another algorithm and the result will be the same.
By the way, instead of reading Steve Neeson, read Candlestick Charting Explained by G. Morris. It contains statistics of different candlestick patterns. Almost all figures lead to 50-53% probability of profit. Some people still look at the candlesticks as something supernatural, not realizing that it is just a normal price movement in a smaller timeframe. The Doji Star may turn into something else if you move the beginning of the report of this smaller timeframe a little bit. But, no. Some people pray for those candles. They report how many candles were down and how many were up. Where the shadow falls from the cloud. It's nonsense in general.
I support gpwr. His approach is clear and correct for any scientific discipline. For any discipline that allows itself to be falsified, i.e. to set up an experiment that would disprove any of the scientific hypotheses. However, the trouble is that Fibo levels, as indeed all thechanalysis, is not a scientific discipline and hence the "ego" of thechanalysis will never allow itself to be falsified.
It is impossible to disprove astrology or chiromancy by any experiments, no matter how carefully, correctly and thoughtfully they are conducted, because astrology and chiromancy do not contain such a possibility. Therefore, there is not and cannot be any disproving experiment. But there are people who successfully use astrological predictions, methods of which they have read out from appropriate books, added their esoteric experiences and now competently calculate positions of bodies and predispositions, precisely measure blah-blah-blah and whatever else can be brought in arguments, only it would be impossible even mentally to make a plan of experiment that would refute them.
Therefore, within science, the question: "The law of universal gravitation: myth or reality?" would be valid.
Within non-science, the question, "Mars' influence on astro-prediction: myth or reality?" does not imply the possibility of disproving "reality".
All the answers in this thread and on any other forum are completely stacked against the system - TA is irrefutable by any experiment. TA is not a science, so it is methodologically incorrect to try to falsify it.
All the answers in this thread and on any other forum fit completely into the system - TA is irrefutable by any experiment. TA is not a science, so it is methodologically incorrect to try to falsify it.
I beg to differ.
TA is a set of methods (mostly probabilistic-statistical), but ANALYSIS.
And the sections of mathematics underlying it are also pseudoscientific?
;)
All the answers in this thread and in any other forum are entirely consistent - TA is irrefutable by any experiment. TA is not a science, so it is methodologically incorrect to try to falsify it.
The subject is slammed with a bang. Signed, sealed, delivered.