Fibonacci levels: myth or reality?

New comment
 

I decided the other day to check how often Fibonacci levels occur in forex using EURUSD over the last 10 years. All calculations in the program are based on the zig-zag.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method 1. Calculates the percentage ratio of the height of each leg of the zig-zag relative to the height of the previous leg:

100% * MathAbs((zz[i]-zz[i-1])/(zz[i-1]-zz[i-2]))

Frequency histogram: Constructed a histogram expecting peaks of 23.6%, 38.2%, 50%, 61.8%, 76.4%, 100%, 127.2%, etc. What I got was this.

There are pronounced sharp peaks at 100% and 200% muves and a smoother peak at 84%. The histogram itself looks like a Poisson distribution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method 2. Plots two zigzags: a fast one (dark blue) and a slow one (light blue). Fibonacci levels are reported from the slow zig-zag forward into the future. The statistics are collected from the ends of a fast zig-zag, for which levels are drawn.

There is a peak at 37%, which is close to the Fibonacci 38.2% level. But in general, Fibonacci levels work just as well as randomly chosen levels.

My personal opinion: Fibonacci levels in forex are a myth.

 

The (fluffy) dog needs to be shaved first, then judge its size.

You assess the noises.

 
gpwr >> :

Fibonacci in forex is a myth, guys. There are pronounced sharp peaks at 100% and 200% muves and a smoother peak at 84%. The histogram itself has the appearance of a Poisson distribution.

god knows... maybe it's a myth... I'm not sure of anything anymore... the only thing left is some sense that it should work... you just have to find the right "starting point"...

 
NikT_58 писал(а) >>

The (fluffy) dog needs to be shaved first, then judge its size.

You are assessing noise.

I expected this answer: Fibonacci levels exist, you just have to be able to see them. Noise is filtered out by discarding data that does not fall within the Fibonacci levels. Right?

 

Who says that Phoebes is reduced to "the ratio of the height of each leg to the height of the previous leg"? That's primitive, colleague...

 
Ask 10 Fiba traders to draw their vision of the markup, and among those who will not refuse you, everyone will draw it differently. You said yourself that you were guided by only one principle in your analysis. Besides, it is hardly worth trying to prove whether something works or not. All the same, without a competent system, it is only an autonomous principle, as many principles are of little applicability "directly".
 

With respect to all those who replied, if you believe in Fibonacci, could you please show me the statistics of the coincidence of price movements with Fibonacci levels and other arbitrary levels. It's like the movie "23" where the hero had all the numbers reduced to 23.

 
Although not the best example, read Pelevin's The Dialectic of Transition from Nowhere to Nowhere. There, 34 led to some very good results. It's not just a matter of faith, it's also a matter of understanding faith. I have little faith in statistics. Although she is a friend of the Queen of Science, but according to statistics every sixth Chinaman, and in my town there are at most a dozen. That is, statistics take and level everything, simplifying and complicating things. And leveling yourself knows what it leads to, enough is enough, we have lived.
 

I see the humour in your post. However, statistics are capable of substantiating vague intuitive guesses about the probability of what seems improbable. This is no longer an equivocation, agree, Ilya.

An example (really, from terver): what is the probability that in a class of 23 people two birthdays will coincide? This problem has already been discussed here. The answer is about 0.5.

 

By no means meant to offend anyone, and just in case I hedged on the mathematics in the previous post, I just respect mathematical disciplines myself. I don't know much about ontology, but even for the same series approximation of all statistics. The same mouwing is a statistical method of smoothing a dynamic series, any skeptic would capitulate to it. I'm just a practitioner by nature, and theorize rarely, so sometimes my posts can be considered cynical.

And in confirmation of the topikstaretru works "it" or not, my practical example. The actual situation of the current euR. I do not think there is any ambiguity of interpretation here.

 

And what is the prognosis?

1234567891011121314151617
New comment