Opinions about WD Gann's theories

This is a discussion on Opinions about WD Gann's theories within the Discretionary Trading forums, part of the Methods category; Originally Posted by zzaxx99 It's difficult to make an informed opinion on Gann, 'Informed opinions' are oxymoronic - whereas uninformed ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 26, 2005, 11:29am   #9
Joined Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzaxx99
It's difficult to make an informed opinion on Gann,
'Informed opinions' are oxymoronic - whereas uninformed opinion is simply moronic.

If you do choose to study his work in depth you may derive significant benefit - not just in relation to trading. I came across Gann's work from quite another direction - long before I developed any interest in financial trading.

It is important and I have a far from a humble 'opinion' on that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zzaxx99
I can't remember much of it in detail, though the bit about "360" being a fundamental number in Gann-style TA because it was a fundamental number in nature, or words to that effect, stuck in my mind, because it was such manifest nonsense. His theory (the speaker's, presumably representing Gann's) was that because 360 was the number of degrees in a circle, and that this number "turned up everywhere", that it was fundamental to many things, including Gann analysis.

Now, if he had chosen pi or e or the Planck constant., or something that really is a fundamental number
{my emphasis}

The rationale behind the Babylonians choosing a sexagesimal system is as 'real' or not, as any other physical 'constants' we choose to treat as 'real'.

In essence, all of these models/values/constants are adopted as useful rather than a direct experience or measure of reality itself (if indeed there is such a thing).

To assume otherwise is, to paraphrase Korzybski, to confuse the map with the territory.
TheBramble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 12:29pm   #10
 
zzaxx99's Avatar
Joined Oct 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBramble
The rationale behind the Babylonians choosing a sexagesimal system is as 'real' or not, as any other physical 'constants' we choose to treat as 'real'.

In essence, all of these models/values/constants are adopted as useful rather than a direct experience or measure of reality itself (if indeed there is such a thing).

To assume otherwise is, to paraphrase Korzybski, to confuse the map with the territory.
That's simply not true. To take the example of pi it is a manifestly objective constant - it is the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter, and doesn't matter what units it is measured in or what number base or the opinion of anyone, barring fundamental change in the physics of the universe, it is.

This is not remotely like choosing 360 as the number of parts of a circle - we could equally have been using 400 gradians, and no one thinking of degrees at all. Is 360 still a profound number then? No, and it isn't now either.

Now, I'm not disputing everything Gann says - as I alluded to earlier, I don't have enough exposure to his work to be able to judge. However, the parts I have seen have been... open to dispute.
zzaxx99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 12:42pm   #11
Joined Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzaxx99
That's simply not true. To take the example of pi it is a manifestly objective constant - it is the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter, and doesn't matter what units it is measured in or what number base or the opinion of anyone, barring fundamental change in the physics of the universe, it is.
You're rather proving my point. You are holding as manifestly true in an inherent and absolute manner, that there are such things as ratio, circle, circumference, diameter. They are useful mental constructs - nothing more. They help us build bridges and fly to the moon - very useful indeed. But they are still just intellectual constructs. Try playing with Pi in a non-Euclidean universe...and we're not talking about any 'fundamental change in the physics of the universe' - just a change in the way we choose to view it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zzaxx99
This is not remotely like choosing 360 as the number of parts of a circle - we could equally have been using 400 gradians, and no one thinking of degrees at all. Is 360 still a profound number then? No, and it isn't now either.
Well actually, if you research why the Babylonians did work with that number system and why their rationale was sufficiently 'strong' for them to be responsible for its continued usage today, you'll find just how close your circle/diameter example (chosen at random I'm sure ) is to where they were at, then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zzaxx99
Now, I'm not disputing everything Gann says - as I alluded to earlier, I don't have enough exposure to his work to be able to judge. However, the parts I have seen have been... open to dispute.
Absolutely. Everything is open to disputation.

I hope this is of use to tokac...
TheBramble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 1:26pm   #12
 
halldorpb's Avatar
Joined Jan 2005
Excerpt from the foreword of 45 Years in Wall Street, Gann“s last book:

"Many have written requesting me to write a new book. With the desire to help others I have written "45 Years in Wall Street" giving the benefit of my experience and my new discoveries to aid others in these difficult times. I am now in my 72nd year; fame would do me no good. I have more income than I can spend for my needs, therefore, my only object in writing this new book is to give to others the most valuable gift possible - KNOWLEDGE. If a few find the way to make safer investments my object will have been accomplished and satisfied readers will be my reward. W.D. Gann, July 2, 1949."
halldorpb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 2:02pm   #13
 
zzaxx99's Avatar
Joined Oct 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by halldorpb
Excerpt from the foreword of 45 Years in Wall Street, Gann“s last book:

"Many have written requesting me to write a new book. With the desire to help others I have written "45 Years in Wall Street" giving the benefit of my experience and my new discoveries to aid others in these difficult times. I am now in my 72nd year; fame would do me no good. I have more income than I can spend for my needs, therefore, my only object in writing this new book is to give to others the most valuable gift possible - KNOWLEDGE. If a few find the way to make safer investments my object will have been accomplished and satisfied readers will be my reward. W.D. Gann, July 2, 1949."
With respect, that doesn't prove anything. A cynic might rephrase it thus:

"I want to publish a book. With the desire to make money I have written "45 Years in Wall Street" expounding my theories and to sell the maximum number of copies by cloaking it in the guise of giving the benefit of my experience and my new discoveries to aid others in these difficult times. I am getting on a bit, and know that false modesty plays well with the audience. I will look more credible if I claim to have more income than I can spend for my needs; my only object in writing this new book is to give to others the most valuable gift possible - the opportunity to give me MONEY. If I can convince a few of my theories, I might be able to get them to also shell out for my courses"
zzaxx99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 2:34pm   #14
 
halldorpb's Avatar
Joined Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzaxx99
With respect, that doesn't prove anything. A cynic might rephrase it thus:

"I want to publish a book. With the desire to make money I have written "45 Years in Wall Street" expounding my theories and to sell the maximum number of copies by cloaking it in the guise of giving the benefit of my experience and my new discoveries to aid others in these difficult times. I am getting on a bit, and know that false modesty plays well with the audience. I will look more credible if I claim to have more income than I can spend for my needs; my only object in writing this new book is to give to others the most valuable gift possible - the opportunity to give me MONEY. If I can convince a few of my theories, I might be able to get them to also shell out for my courses"
I agree. I only published this for clarity“s sake, since I have so much money

Btw, this doesn“t prove he“s dishonest either...
halldorpb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 2:51pm   #15
 
starspacer's Avatar
Joined Dec 2003
You sometimes wonder why they aren't more forthright.

They would have much more credibility if they simply wrote: "I am writing this book, simply to add to my legacy as a famous techician/trader/investor. Also, although I have more money than I could possibly spend, I would like even more wealth so that, if necessary, I can spend my last days in a luxurious dwelling and leave my family a large sum upon my demise."

Respect!
__________________
I earn my own income, bagpuss. Whose ballbag do you nuzzle?

starspacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2005, 3:02pm   #16
 
halldorpb's Avatar
Joined Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by starspacer
You sometimes wonder why they aren't more forthright.

They would have much more credibility if they simply wrote: "I am writing this book, simply to add to my legacy as a famous techician/trader/investor. Also, although I have more money than I could possibly spend, I would like even more wealth so that, if necessary, I can spend my last days in a luxurious dwelling and leave my family a large sum upon my demise."

Respect!
"I wanted to publish a book, so here goes!" followed by a signature...who can hate you for that?
halldorpb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gann's Square of 9 aricho Technical Analysis 37 May 29, 2013 5:48pm
CFD Trading via IG - opinions please neil Spread Betting & CFDs 1 Jun 11, 2005 11:55pm
Opinions please madgooner Stocks 20 Jan 20, 2003 3:00pm
Holy Grails, Good Theories or Systems & Poor Execution verec Psychology, Risk & Money Management 2 Dec 1, 2002 4:25pm
Dataflex - DFX opinions anybody please Max Damage Stocks 0 Feb 8, 2001 9:19pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)