Discussion of article "Revisiting Murray system" - 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
how can you understand this shit, it's all in the corners.
Look at the right corners, ignore the rest.
Author, you have mixed Murray levels and Gann's pattern (box) in a heap. You can just work with a box, and it is clearer and more accurate.
In my perception Murray has a system that includes far more than just levels. And yes, he never once hid that he learnt from Gunn.
And, in order not to be completely unsubstantiated, I will cite a screenshot from the original presentation of the software implemented by Murray:
In my perception, Murray has a system that includes far more than just levels. And yes, he never once hid that he studied under Gunn.
And, in order not to be completely unsubstantiated, I will cite a screenshot from the original presentation of the software implemented by Murray:
Only here a paradox arises. If Murray had understood Gunn to the end, he would not have invented his own system.
There's a paradox. If Murray had understood Gunn to the end, he wouldn't have invented his system.
For me, every system has to be convenient for its creator.
If Gunn's system is inconvenient to someone, despite its accuracy, why not adapt it to suit them? If, say, the square nine seems mystical to someone, who prevents them from using geometry alone? Who prevents us from dividing not the maximum-minimum ranges, but from using more "stationary" levels? If it is inconvenient for me to enter at 8 in New York, but OK at 12 in Kiev, will I adjust to the Americans? Well, and so on...
And in the end, I end up with my own system, regardless of how I understand someone else's system...
Convenience decides,