Hello coyotte,
While I have no issue with you talking with authority in the areas you are well versed in such as Guppy, Wilson, and Edwards, I do have an issue with you making sweeping statements which are both factually incorrect, and are flagrant misrepresentations of alternative approaches.
I have no issue with you logically analysing any method that you have studied and commenting on your observations of the pitfalls and limitations of different techniques. Just be thorough about it, and not sloppy - the wonky conclusions you draw from false premises beggers belief. You are so biased against Elliott and Gann, but is this based on a hunch, or is it based on actual experience using them?
I suspect you have never studied Elliott Wave theory or Gann in much depth if at all, have you? If you have, then a more detailed critique would be in order. Otherwise would you accept that you’re making emotional generalisations based on a gut feeling and not much more? Would you also accept that these bodies of knowledge are actually quite involved and that just like technical analysis as a field in itself, there are many competing schools even within these disciplines.
coyotte said:
Gann --- never left details of his method and ended up a pauper anyhow !
Elliott Waves ---- O/K where does the 1st Wave start ? -- every practitoner has their own subjective starting point .
Fibonacci --- have nothing against the mysteries , but get real --- this only works because a sizeable crowd believe it works .
Gann:
According to the wise sage Coyotte, Gann never left details of his method. How then could an “add on” possibly be devised based on no method? Why do I have a library full of Gann originals detailing many techniques? This statement is just false.
Coyotte, please list precisely which works of Gann you have read, and then give a brief synopsis as to why you reject each method. Essentially which techniques have you researched, and why do you think that they don’t work? (By the way, I reject quite a few of the techniques myself, so you might find that I actually agree with your appraisal assuming you’ve actually read the works, and interestingly so did Gann as he developed. Don’t forget, the entire surviving works span a lifetime of rethinking and refining a perspective).
Elliott:
So, Coyotte, you are also an expert in Elliott Wave theory too. Can you please list which works on Elliott Wave you have studied, what you understand to be the core concepts of the theory, and then explain why you reject these concepts.
Fibonacci:
Are you really telling me that you don’t use any kind of retracement approach, or extensions? Fine if you don’t, but please outline why you think this approach doesn’t work.
coyotte said:
You have really got to come back to what T/A is based on and that is "Crowd Phycology " --- you are trying to FOLLOW the crowd (not lead them) .
This where the add ons like Gann , Elliott Waves etc fall down , they are trying to get out in front of the pack .
This style of thinking is more suitable to Punters --- they must keep their knowledge to themselves in order to obtain higher odds -- with T/A it is exactlly the opposite the more the crowd agrees , the better for you .
Coyotte you seem to talk with significant authority about Elliott and Gann. Why then if you understand them do you misrepresent them?
The concept of forecasting (which is probably a misnomer) is like a project management discipline - you assess the risks with a risk management plan looking at probabilities and assigning risk mitigation approaches for contingencies (this is what you do with methodologies like Prince 2 or Rational Unified Process in IT implementations).
Essentially extensions and retracements (such as the Fibonacci approach) are aiming to make estimates of where support/resistance in price is likely to be, and assess probabilities. All you’re doing is measuring statistical deviations with a tool. It isn’t that big an ask really. Add to this pattern analysis, and you use this as opposed to lagging indicators such as moving averages and oscillators used by the Guppy/Wilson schools.
Come on coyotte, they really aren’t that different. The trigger process is actually quite similar, but one looks primarily at the pattern and probability, the other uses lagging indicators for the entry and exit signals, that’s the core difference (Guppy does use patterns sure, but look at the trigger techniques).
Both approaches attempt to identify a trend, and trade it. The idea is once you’ve mastered looking at charts and patterns, you can use your preferred approach. If you want to use a moving average, wave structure, or a retracement system, trend lines, whatever, the key thing is to establish an entry criteria, and then determine a trading plan to establish exit criteria either on stop or profit, isn’t it?
Coyotte, while I have respect for your capability in trading using your method, I don’t think that you have ventured much out of this body of knowledge. I have a lot of Guppy books on my shelf, and trialled his methods, and found that they didn’t work effectively enough for me for what I was trying to do. But I recognise that it is horses for courses, and that it works for you.
I look forward to your in-depth response as to why each technique of Elliott and Gann should be rejected.
Regards,
Magdoran