- Joined
- 5 March 2008
- Posts
- 951
- Reactions
- 141
Hi Nick,
I asked you a couple of weeks ago....
Your reply was about how Arnold used shorter time frame triangles.
I've just had a re-read of the PPS book and found on page 45....
He then stated that he "gravitated toward smaller, more compact patterns".
The 86.4% that broke in the direction of the trend, is in the "Notes from the research"
The compact triangles may not have the same results, I saw no mention of it. However his original research which does include the same type of symmetrical triangle length as Bulkowski, has vastly different results. I would presume that it is because the research periods were different. Plus Arnold was looking at Commodities while Bulkowski was looking at stocks.
This again begs the question, Have you, or for that matter anyone else, done this type of research on Australian stocks, before applying it to Australian stocks??
brty
I asked you a couple of weeks ago....
Have you done any statistical analysis of this on our market as methinks it may vary over time.
Your reply was about how Arnold used shorter time frame triangles.
I've just had a re-read of the PPS book and found on page 45....
.When I did the original research in 1987, I required the symmetrical triangles to be at least 10 days and no more than 50 days long
He then stated that he "gravitated toward smaller, more compact patterns".
The 86.4% that broke in the direction of the trend, is in the "Notes from the research"
The compact triangles may not have the same results, I saw no mention of it. However his original research which does include the same type of symmetrical triangle length as Bulkowski, has vastly different results. I would presume that it is because the research periods were different. Plus Arnold was looking at Commodities while Bulkowski was looking at stocks.
This again begs the question, Have you, or for that matter anyone else, done this type of research on Australian stocks, before applying it to Australian stocks??
brty