Bill Williams and his strategies... - page 10
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
I don't think there is a single person who makes money on Elliot theory or trading chaos
So you don't think it is possible to determine the maximum and minimum of a price wave on any instrument and any TF? )))
So you do not think that it is possible to determine the maximum and minimum of a price wave in any instrument and in any TF? )))
Answer: It is not possible to determine the maximum and minimum of the price wave on any instrument and any TF with a probability greater than random using Elliott waves.
You see, I would foamily defend the wave theory in the front row if these formations would only appear in meaningful data series, such as temperature chart, economic cycles, stock prices, but they would never appear randomly and on their own. In reality it is just the opposite. Distinctive five-wave waves can usually be seen on obviously accidental data series where there is no and cannot be any sequence. Moreover, fractality, one of the foundations of this theory, is also a basic property of random increments. Another reason I cannot use these Chaos and Wave theories is that they are not related to the economic theory and even directly contradict it. The movement of market prices is not determined by waves, but by Her Majesty Economics. By studying waves or any other TA per se, we are putting the cart before the horse. Have you ever wondered why the market has to reverse at the top of the fifth wave? And why the fifth wave and not the third or the seventh or the first? And why exactly should the pullbacks be proportional to the number 0.618? The market is not a guessing board, but a place for effective monetary-commodity exchange. There are not and cannot be symbols, magic numbers and other attributes of communication with spirits.
S.L. If you give an economic substantiation of Elliott Wave Sequence and it is convincing, maybe it will make sense to me. But I am not sure that it is possible, because economic sense in them does not and cannot be.
I don't mean to be intrusive, but Slutsky's work on "causality" in cycles makes a lot of sense. I wish I had seen the original source.
You don't confuse cyclical economic processes and Eliot waves. Cycles in economics have been around since the 19th century. The longest cycles were recorded and highlighted by Kondratieff in the early 20th century and this economic crisis fits his theory perfectly. Moreover, in the chart he drew in the 20's the bottom of the economic global crisis falls just in 2015 - 2018.
But Eliot waves have nothing to do with it. They don't make economic sense, and neither do the waves themselves.
Answer: it is not possible to determine the maximum and minimum of a price wave on any instrument and any TF with a probability greater than random using Elliott waves.
And if not with the help of Elliott Waves, of which, by the way, I do not understand anything, since I only read about them diagonally? )))
C-4, the problem is that you don't take the Phoebes into account in any way. And not from one swing, but from many.
The waves themselves mean little without the many additional tools that make the waves work in the hands of a true artist. One such tool is the Fibs. There are waves on the "notoriously random rows", but there are no Fibs (more precisely, there are, but no more than randomness itself allows for:)). It is on the financial rows that Fib turns out to be much larger than would be allowed if the rows were random.
And don't just talk about the two most famous Fibs - 0.618 and 0.382. There are many more, up to a dozen and a half or two dozen.
I can't give my own confirmation of these words: I never managed to trade profitably on waves. I think that the main reason was that I was undertrained. A truly skilled wave trader is forged through at least 5 years of studying the charts themselves and additional tools.
C-4, the problem is that you don't account for Phibs in any way. And not from one swing, but from many.
The waves themselves mean little without the many additional tools that make the waves work in the hands of a true artist. One such tool is the Fibs. There are waves on the "notoriously random rows", but there are no Fibs (more precisely, there are, but no more than randomness itself allows for:)). It is on the financial rows that Fib turns out to be much larger than would be allowed if the rows were random.
And don't just talk about the two most famous Fibs - 0.618 and 0.382. There are many more, up to one and a half to two dozen.
I can't give my own confirmation of these words: I've never managed to trade profitably on waves. I think that the main reason was that I was undertrained. A truly skilled wave trader is forged through at least 5 years of studying the charts themselves and additional tools.
on the financial rows, phybos are there because people believe they are there. It's called the Oedipus Efect. Fibo levels will be there as long as traders use them and influence the price with their quotes, thus forming these Fibo levels.
Fin series are the cumulative result of people's behaviour. And a random series in most cases does not depend on human behaviour
Answer: it is not possible to determine the maximum and minimum of a price wave on any instrument and any TF with a probability greater than random using Elliott waves.
There is nothing economically substantiated in TA except, perhaps, resistance and support levels. Especially on round numbers. But you have to use something!
But you have to use something!
Dynamic programming, for example )))
Programming is a tool to implement an idea. And what kind of trading idea would be programmed?