essentially, I now have more ammunition to disprove the veracity and contiguous draw-ups versus DD and thus am able to better disprove the validity of the fibonacci employment as a live trading tool........by this I mean the probability of achieving higher DD to DU is prohibitive unless the trader intends to follow a strategy of purest linear entrances and exits ........this does not suit the way I now trade.......having said that, there are times when I'll look for inverse fib ratios in retracements (in minuette and minor degree levels) and this is to assist in the proof that the move I am seeing is part of a larger move that I have already interpreted rather than to use as mechanism of itself........proving structure if nothing else and only at lower edgrees of trend
At the end of the day, imo, Fibonacci is a marvel in proving the concept of fractal robustness and the confluence of pattern structure as part of a thesis or paper on limbic systems ........beyond that, the truth is, for me, that; that empiric knowledge aside, the unfurling of a pattern does not await confirmation of a fibonacci, however, the Fibonacci does require confirmation from the pattern which is then (already) complete and not available for trade to enter .........and if I am already in pos then I hardly depend on a Fibonacci signal to exit ............
so, while that sounds a tad contradictory, because I still look for inverted Fibonacci ratios in zigzags, I do not depend on them as a signal as a Fibonacci acts as a magnet (in interpretation) and a resistance (in interpretation) and a support (in interpretation) ........as I then must use other knowledge to expand on the validity of entering or exiting on that Fibonacci signal, then, that means I would get that signal else-where, regardless............therein the tool does not actually prove that I can lift my level of risk protection. Fibonacci can actually lift risk levels, make a trader aggressive, when a trader places such a priority that that priority distracts and detracts from other key signals..........remember, this is my pov and I am not stating this as an implicit, or to be so.
I hope that is clear enough an explanation.
While I am satisfied that most of my past Fibonacci posts contain valuable information and should have been left in (T2W), I now think that to repost them maybe misleading given what Ive just said and the way I conduct business.
While I used to argue that Fibonacci carry probability, they do not intrinsically carry enough risk profile, rather, they carry a sense of "feeling" that permission is given by a regime.........any live futures trader must know that to trade purely "off" fibonacci takes an understanding and discipline that requires pristine application and I can tell you now that few traders (ever) have the ability to conduct such a pristine application and remain cognizent of what is really unfolding at critical stages of sessions.........
A good example might be that friday was a critical Fibonacci turn-date, yet, there have been a plethora of such turn-dates when nothing but continuity occurred ............so a trader would have exited or entered on that signal if no other regimen is relied upon as a signal for action.........this clearly would lead to a string of DD and an (as yet) unknown DU which may or may not be 1 or two sessions ..........take this and apply it to say the 1.618 extension of each move.......we need to know what relative size to apply and what relative size should we enter and exit on and which other extensions should take action on at the same time.........(aside from the passing the level figured)we then need to take into account what other signals would override the Fibonacci ratio as being a magnet or S/R and this brings up the question of whether that need to see and prove other signals then immediately invalidates or lessens the value of the ratio we expect to see occurr (not yet proven in the live trade)
how many times have I seen fibonacci levels get hit retrace fractionally and then revert to the one-larger degree trend? Very often is the answer. You see the inherent challenge with this? Stop, start........stop, start and all the while distracting from what is really unfolding, in realtime...........
Clearly trading on Fibonacci is not satisfactory for me and I know that I need to exapnd much more on this so as not give the inappropriate bias .........
I am adament of one thing; that there is no such thing as trading "on" Fibonacci or "by" Fibonacci .........any one who says that that is what they do is likely fooling themselves or selling a package ( this is not to be confused with Elliotts waves, which is not what I am talking about)........after trading "by" and "on" most trader come to realise that once they remove the Fibonacci side-track, that, the other understanding they require, is the technical knowledge that had priority, yet, they did not view that as such, because they were driven to "see" value in someting that is not immediately, necessarily, inviting the trader to think through the procing process ( and that area is a whole different emphasis).
to summarise and yes, I know, there is much to discuss and much time needs to be spent, on this subject, so that you can take the parts that you can use and the parts that you can place into appropriate perspective.........or, the bits that work as a ratio to the parts that rarely, if ever, "work" and produce consistant-enough results
I rebuke people who have not empirically studied the efficacey of Fibonacci and then they go on to "slag" the subject and I also carry a very strong urge to yell at someone who blindly rambles about the value of this math.
......... especially where the emphasis of a stratgey is based on Fibs, validity in the employ of Fibonacci must be done in realtime not in hindsight.
Experience has shown me that during mild periods of retracement in an impulsive set in some futures markets the 78.6 (sqr root of 61.8) is a common magnet while in other similar phases 66% is the draw and when I am expecting the 1.618 to be hit the 150 mark sees a turnaround........I am not implying that there is a level of guesswork.........I am implying that some markets at some times in some sell-downs and some buy-ups, some ratios are common ...........so the question isnt does Fibonacci work, the question is which one and how much is the trader prepared to rely given that the risk level is very high and the entrance and exits are linear when employed this way........there are so many ratios available and all of them are active........like Elliotts waves......all waves are active at the same time......the question is extent.........the trader is locked in by the system that needs to be designed to best keep the risk level at its lowest.........this has little to do with new players who enter and alter the unfurling live action........I am alluding to the distraction here......and while Fibonacci do unveil limbic properties I doubt that the average trader is ever going to learn that area of natural science.
In the area of geometric structures which include Fibonacci measures, yes, these are as much an art, of interpretation, as they are a foward-looking (expectant) science in motion.
In a live set-up, you must ask, which ratio is in action at which level. You must ask, is the ratio truly a Fibonacci or a Lucas or a geometric and the numbers arent the key because the point of the ratio is to ratify the active impulsion of Phi .........well, you don't know and you are being asked to look, keep looking and while youre doing that youre not looking at other areas which may require your attention......these are often the areas that are going to give you the real and immediate key you need to see.
trading is not a science field-trip........
let me know which parts of this you want me to exapnd on and please accept that for me to fully expand on the pitfalls and advantages I would need to do that ina live set-up.