Gann, honestly, is it a good basis for trading?

[sails]

Hello Margaret,

Yes you have put a lot of work into derivatives. Actually I think in some areas you'd be way ahead of me. I'm very reliant on my software to "paint" the risk and reward picture, with a preference for Binomial over Black and Scholes.

But my mathematical ability without this crutch is poor. I cannot crunch that type of number in my head, although I do have a good feel for what the graph should look like, and what the numbers should be, but this is intuitive. A guy I knew at university was able to do calculus in his head. Amazing guy, talked about reverse demand curves, and all sorts of things even the lecturer was out of his depth. I can't do that, so I rely on the software to do it for me.

I think my strength is in the visualisation of the probability and integrating this with the "facts and figures" risk to reward on the chart, knowing where the "sweet spots" are. I think you clearly know the mathematical backdrop better than I do innately. You've shown this many times.

I sometimes get help building these from time to time when I reach my limits. I do the due diligence because I have to, not because I'm naturally good at it. I'm not. Believe me, I struggle sometimes. Logic is my strength. Crunching numbers isn't. I see the pattern, but I can't formularise it without aid (such as software).

I also heavily rely on software. I am absolutely no mathematician, but I think after studying hundreds, if not thousands of risk graphs over the years, I can pretty much mentally visualize a lot of varying option strategies now.

Re McLaren's interpretation of Gann, I think you'd actually master this on your own once you have access to the pieces you need. You certainly have the capability. All I'd be doing would be to give you a few shortcuts and and accelerating the process to incorporate some of the pieces you are missing (a bit like Heisenberg made a minor but ultimately deal breaking error working on nuclear physics during WWII which meant the Nazis didn't develop nuclear capability).

Looking forward to putting a few more missing pieces of the jigsaw together as I feel there are lots of missing bits at the moment. However, I believe I need to be able to devote the necessary time to understand McLaren’s work properly. Would certainly appreciate any shortcuts when I get there!

Re Franks work. I've looked at this, and frankly (forgive the pun) I don't "buy" it. I think this whole use of the term "dynamic time" is a misnomer. Yes, it's a "dynamic system" since you adjust your appraisal as the market trends, but any system worth it's salt does this. It is a reactive approach, not a forecasting approach. I really don't think he gets "time" at all. His work indicates to me he has totally missed the points wavepicker and I made on this subject.

At several points in the past Frank would be taking the opposite trade when I'd have been winding out positions, or even reversing them. Key examples can be seen reading the comments between Frank and wavepicker, and especially the example of the Feb 24 2007 counter trend. Frank was still long when this sharp pull back occurred. If he really understood counter trends and "time", why doesn't his system deliver responses to address what to me are obvious situations where the trend is at risk? My conclusion is that he just doesn't understand time cycles the way we do. I think there is sufficient evidence from my perspective to support that conclusion for the present time.

That's not to say that there isn't value in his approach - there is if this is your preferred style. He has obviously spent a significant amount of time perfecting what he's doing. What I object to is his "mantra" that his system uses "dynamic time" and my approach is using "static time". This is just nonsense to me and marketing semantics, and in my view misleading.

If he understood time and the pattern of trend he'd be able to perceive when the trend is clearly at risk (from the "McLaren" perspective), which from the evidence he doesn't. So to label something he clearly doesn't understand with a pejorative term begs the question in my view.

I'd be fine with him calling his system "dynamic adjustment to price action", because that is what he's doing. It is based on price highs and lows, NOT time (at least in the sense I am talking about). In McLaren's terms he's using the "division of the range" in PRICE as a basis for his levels. Price is usually the third thing I look at in my approach, not the first.

I agree that Frank’s “time” and the Gann/Mclaren “time” are two totally different things. Chalk and cheese – both useful depending on it’s intended use. It probably also explains the differences in reading the market as the two systems are not alike and would possibly generate different signals at times.

I can understand why Frank uses his terminology as his methods rely on dynamic adjustments based on ever changing time frames, eg. yearly/monthly/weekly, etc, etc. He does forecast – actually just over a week ago he came within 7 points of calling the last top on the SPI. It was all done ahead of time. About the 8th April, he was forecasting an important level at 3611 which was duly reached and the SPI promptly did a u-bolt as it hit that point.

Now, not all his intra-day forecasts have happened, but then it is interesting to watch how Frank adapts to the changing market conditions intra-day. He is obviously very fluent with his own system – at this stage, it’s all much to fast for me to follow clearly. I have only had 6 trading days watching his intra-day premium blog and really only just understanding his basic concepts from his book at this stage. I don’t see it as a holy grail, rather a possible useful tool in the toolbox.

Interestingly, both the two forecasts I have mentioned above fitted in well with range equality in my quickly, sketched out swing charts. I personally think it would be almost impossible to keep up with Gann style analysis on one minute charts, so one needs faster techniques for intra-day trading, IMO.

Motorway talked of "the" high, or "the" low, which is in my view a trap if you try to impose this on time cycles in my style. Time cycles are often NOT based on key lows/highs in a significant number of cases. Of course they are important, but they are only a piece of the puzzle in my view. They become in my view a trap if you fixate too much on them. But this is MY view for me and my "style" I fully recognize that Frank and motorway have their own styles which works for them, and I salute that.

I take my hat off to you if you can understand Motorway’s posts! I wish I could as they look interesting and he puts in a lot of effort, but for me, it’s like reading a foreign language. But yes, I do understand what you are saying about major highs and lows in relation to time cycles.

I agree that Frank has his methods, and I am having a closer look to see if it or even parts of it will work for me.

Cheers

 

[nunthewiser]

.

Internet gurus are a dime a dozen in this place. Their words are spread out like a sickness on this boards, like the one I replied to. I do not confess to knowing every thing about trading but I do know that I haven't seen an ACTUAL profitable Gann trader SHOW their profitable trading.

Thus my comment,

well ive scrolled back since this thread got bumped up and still have not seen any evidence of any actual trading as yet

no offense intended but geez guys if i wanted to read a story i,d read a stickbook instead

lol and this is from someone who cares not on what methods you use , just dont bore me with another fairytale

hey if you got a reason for not showing statements which is fair enough .how about some advance trade picks instead of this hindsight claims to fame that is about all ive read here

 

[Magdoran]

Magdoran you will not bully me out of this thread like you do to others that question you. My initial post in here that sparked this thread back to life was about the theorist calming the greatness of Gann.

My challenge to them at the time was to show practical evidence of the claimed greatness of Gann. Not one including you have shown it. I don't want you to point out your great calls. Any self proclaimed internet Guru can do that. As a real trader I can point out a few good ones of my own. But I know they don't make the "Trembling hand practical theory" valid. What does is showing a methods application IN the market making money. I 've done that with approx 2000s real trades backed up with statements.

My backing up of Tech was in response to you paying out on his tech trader. I think thats a ridiculus reply. Here is a system that was REALLY traded LIVE, that MADE lots of money and put out there for ALL to scrutinse. And you tried to dumb on it. Whats the point you are trying to make

Funny you mention Wavepicker because I find your reply the same as wavepickers reply when I first came on here. He dumped on a method I put up for some reason and tried to push it off. Then I find out later that he was confessing to trading greatness when his claimed yearly profit was what I make in a couple of weeks . THEN I find his been kicked off here because he been posting under other handles praising his own post .

Internet gurus are a dime a dozen in this place. Their words are spread out like a sickness on this boards, like the one I replied to. I do not confess to knowing every thing about trading but I do know that I haven't seen an ACTUAL profitable Gann trader SHOW their profitable trading.

Thus my comment,

Trembling Hand,

You can be the apologist for tech and his lackey all you like.

As for bullying, I ask you, who opened our little "tete a tete" with a snide disrespectful comment? Did I ever attack you in this way? No. Interesting that you are being so selfrigheous over this whe you cast the first stone.

I respond in kind. Constructive and polite conversation with those who discuss, and scorn for those like you who chant meaningless mantras and make nasty small minded comments. I've dealt with tech's belligerence for years, and if you want to step into the ring with your "perspicacity" (I've read your blog - my god, it is a treatise in naivety), be my guest.

When people like Lesm for example have asked questions in a polite and reasonable way, I've done my best to respond. What gives you the right TH to act in such a poor fashion? I've got no problems with discussion, but your kind of gutter thinking is beneath me.

I have not time for peons like you TH. You're a waste of time.

 

[Magdoran]

I also heavily rely on software. I am absolutely no mathematician, but I think after studying hundreds, if not thousands of risk graphs over the years, I can pretty much mentally visualize a lot of varying option strategies now.



Looking forward to putting a few more missing pieces of the jigsaw together as I feel there are lots of missing bits at the moment. However, I believe I need to be able to devote the necessary time to understand McLaren’s work properly. Would certainly appreciate any shortcuts when I get there!



I agree that Frank’s “time” and the Gann/Mclaren “time” are two totally different things. Chalk and cheese – both useful depending on it’s intended use. It probably also explains the differences in reading the market as the two systems are not alike and would possibly generate different signals at times.

I can understand why Frank uses his terminology as his methods rely on dynamic adjustments based on ever changing time frames, eg. yearly/monthly/weekly, etc, etc. He does forecast – actually just over a week ago he came within 7 points of calling the last top on the SPI. It was all done ahead of time. About the 8th April, he was forecasting an important level at 3611 which was duly reached and the SPI promptly did a u-bolt as it hit that point.

Now, not all his intra-day forecasts have happened, but then it is interesting to watch how Frank adapts to the changing market conditions intra-day. He is obviously very fluent with his own system – at this stage, it’s all much to fast for me to follow clearly. I have only had 6 trading days watching his intra-day premium blog and really only just understanding his basic concepts from his book at this stage. I don’t see it as a holy grail, rather a possible useful tool in the toolbox.

Interestingly, both the two forecasts I have mentioned above fitted in well with range equality in my quickly, sketched out swing charts. I personally think it would be almost impossible to keep up with Gann style analysis on one minute charts, so one needs faster techniques for intra-day trading, IMO.




I take my hat off to you if you can understand Motorway’s posts! I wish I could as they look interesting and he puts in a lot of effort, but for me, it’s like reading a foreign language. But yes, I do understand what you are saying about major highs and lows in relation to time cycles.

I agree that Frank has his methods, and I am having a closer look to see if it or even parts of it will work for me.

Cheers

Hi Margaret,

Interesting. Frank certainly has spent a lot of time on his system, and I note it works very well for intra-day trading. You are correct, the Gann approaches are not very good for intra-day work from my perspective. I have heard of some people claiming to use some of the methods successfully, but I'm skeptical about this, but I really don't know. The way I work is certainly not intra-day.

motorway is enigmatic. In some ways he seems very gifted, but in other ways is quite obscure. I'm guessing a lot about his approach. I really don't understand it (yet), but I suspect a lot about what he is doing. Interesting work, but not sure how or if I can glean anything I can incorporate. What it does do is provide an alternative perspective to help to inspire new angles of thought on this.

Kind Regards

Magdoran

 

[Magdoran]

well ive scrolled back since this thread got bumped up and still have not seen any evidence of any actual trading as yet

no offense intended but geez guys if i wanted to read a story i,d read a stickbook instead

lol and this is from someone who cares not on what methods you use , just dont bore me with another fairytale

hey if you got a reason for not showing statements which is fair enough .how about some advance trade picks instead of this hindsight claims to fame that is about all ive read here

Sorry nunthewiser,

Posting is highly time consuming, and I really don't have the time to devote to it that I did in the past. I have other obligations and pursuits, not to mention an invitation only group that is working on new ideas about the market. In fact from here on in I will spend most of my time (market based activity time outside of my own work) focused on individuals in the group who I can help.

Another point, I gave countless examples in the past which was of value to the minority who want to pursue this style. Go to the links I've posted and read through them if you are really interested in learning this. If not, then simply ignore my posts.

Additionally, you have to understand that "good" setups happen rarely, and it is only at specific times they become evident. Sometimes there are only low probability trades on, and it's pointless posting these (as I did at times on demand in the past and then people would base their view of the effectiveness on a shot from the hip call made on demand).

I'm completely out of the trading market right now both because I don't see any high probability trades on, and also because I'm not sharp enough physically to trade right now. One of my rules to trade is to be in good condition physically and psychologically. Does that make sense?

Respectfully, how many posts would I have to make to sate some of the detractors here? The answer is that they will never be satisfied, will they? They have no constructive motive, either they want to get it all for nothing, or they just want to attack what they don't understand. If you were in the same position, how would you respond? I don't owe them anything, and I'm not about to give them anything.

For those who have an interest, please do keep in contact. For those that don't, good luck in whatever path you choose.

Mag

 

[tech/a]

Respectfully, how many posts would I have to make to sate some of the detractors here?

Just say 6 charts showing the practical application would be fine.

As for the Thread title
"Gann, honestly, is it a good basis for trading?"

Moggie is evidently a fine exponent of the "Art"
The answer then truly lies within this thread.

If you do happen to be impressed by the complex rhetoric and part with your hard earned for the introductory course then again for the intermediate course and then again for the Masters course and then again for the Private invite only course not forgetting the "Secrets Course" and then the "Boot Camp" In Tahiti.

You'll find the circular non applicable argument/rhetoric here as well and you'll have to pay for the privilege---pay handsomely.

Is it a good basis for trading?
Well if you think so---Go ahead.

 

[Magdoran]

I'm not going to bother with this nonsense again.

1. I'm not recommending anyone spends $20K like tech did to get ahead.
2. I've made careful recommendations to save significant amounts of capital outlay, time, and paths to address trading psychology.
3. I've suggested ways to accelerate the learning process in detail.
4. I am not asking to be paid for this.
5. I have never abandoned my style on a whim mid way after having put up a system.

I have offered approaches to those who are interested for them to examine a range of alternatives if they think the materials warrant further consideration.

I've also said time after time this is not suitable for many people. I've outlined in detail what I think is required based on what I have learned in good faith.

I'm sick to death of having people come in with little or no understanding, or a desire to be disruptive or with the aim of making abusive and unwarranted attacks. Debates/discussions on a friendly basis are fine.

Blatant spoiler attempts are just not constructive and in the end reflect on the nature of the aggressor. I don't think I need to elaborate my position further. My work speaks for itself. Either people will find these perspectives useful and interesting which is my aim, or they won't.

I'm done with the negativity displayed here. Those who are genuine can feel free to contact me privately.

 

[tech/a]

And you probably wont' . My interest in Gann was purely for his way of looking at things in his own time. In my view how we got here is of benefit overall. In saying that of course there are many hundreds of others who have made enormous contributions.

Today I like the ways of Darryl Morely and Nick Radge, not connected to either but their matter of fact straight up the line approach works for basic trading.

Sorry still have not got that book out T/H, but will comment a bit more when I do. And I am not going soft either, Gann made some very good contributions IMHO

Sadly you seem to be correct.

Maybe someone like Sails or Gazelle will furnish some charts,or indeed anyone who wishes to step up to the plate.

 

[Frank D]

Re Franks work. I've looked at this, and frankly (forgive the pun) I don't "buy" it. Yes, it's a "dynamic system" since you adjust your appraisal as the market trends, but any system worth it's salt does this. It is a reactive approach, not a forecasting approach. I really don't think he gets "time" at all.

Actually looking at how most traders trade, I think your find that most if
not all trade reactively.

That’s strange, from what I can see it does a good job of forecasting
support and resistance levels in advance, and high probability turning
points in advance. And those levels dynamically move forward as
Time moves forward.

If you can’t understand that it can only move dynamically forward as
TIME moves forward, then I'm sorry if it doesn’t fit in with your illusory
square 9.

The example of the Feb 24 2007 counter trend. Frank was still long when this sharp pull back occurred. If he really understood counter trends and "time", why doesn't his system deliver responses to address what to me are obvious situations where the trend is at risk?

I love you and Wave picker, digging up calls from years ago to try and
prove your point.

Chart Below....

Why wouldn’t I still hold Stocks long if the market is traveling towards
the 2007 highs:- there is a breakout of the 2006 highs.

There are margin positions (leverage) and cash trading positions…(holding long term trends)

You exit margin positions on Double monthly highs, as was the case in February and re-enter on pullbacks.

Is it my imagination but those levels in the chart seem to be moving dynamically:- Support and Resistance.

What I object to is his "mantra" that his system uses "dynamic time" and
my approach is using "static time". This is just nonsense to me and marketing semantics, and in my view misleading.

If he understood time and the pattern of trend he'd be able to perceive when the trend is clearly at risk (from the "McLaren" perspective), which from the evidence he doesn't. So to label something he clearly doesn't understand with a pejorative term begs the question in my view.

Mag,

You challenged me on my method a couple of years ago and I start
my Thread, and its been going strong every since. I always put my calls
out in the market in advance, and I put my levels there in advance.

I often call the market accurately in advance, and often get it wrong,
but the important thing is, I display a method that every one can use if
they wish because it displays the key elements of trading:- SUPPORT and RESISTANCE.

Let me say that again:- the important parameters when Trading is SUPPORT and RESISTANCE

I’ve developed a method that encompasses the long-term trader, the
swing trader, and even the day-trader.

You have displayed nothing but empty words, rhetoric, and
illusory information that helps no one but to perpetuate the myth of
Gann, and I guarantee you’ll never be able to display a method that
helps anyone.


The start of this thread says….

Gann, Honestly is it a good basis for Trading?

The Answer is a BIG FRIGGIN NO!!!!!!!

That was a waste of 30 minutes of my life.

 

[Trembling Hand]

As for bullying, I ask you, who opened our little "tete a tete" with a snide disrespectful comment? Did I ever attack you in this way? No. Interesting that you are being so selfrigheous over this whe you cast the first stone.

I respond in kind. Constructive and polite conversation with those who discuss, and scorn for those like you who chant meaningless mantras and make nasty small minded comments. I've dealt with tech's belligerence for years, and if you want to step into the ring with your "perspicacity" (I've read your blog - my god, it is a treatise in naivety), be my guest.

When people like Lesm for example have asked questions in a polite and reasonable way, I've done my best to respond. What gives you the right TH to act in such a poor fashion? I've got no problems with discussion, but your kind of gutter thinking is beneath me.

I have not time for peons like you TH. You're a waste of time.

Magdoran and here is the crux of this thread. People are interested to see if Gann "honestly, is it a good basis for trading". Its fair enough that someone who has some interest in the method should ask those pimping it to prove that it can actually be applied profitably in the market.

In an honest fashion.

But they don't or can't. Is that honest? Are they being plainly fraudulent claiming something that they don't actually do? We never get the answer to these questions. Just replies that we are beneath your superior understanding.

This is what gives me the right. I helped a trader that came to me after losing a large amount of money by trading his account back to profit in weeks so he could start again with some reasonable cash. After being set out to find his own way he sent an email to me saying he had been following Trader Pauls astro stuff !! I was furious and just plainly gobsmacked!! He was amazed to find that Trader Paul doesn't actually trade and he had wasted MUCH time reading his post following something that clearly the author hasn't the confidence to trade

Thats what gives me the right. I have ACTUALLY traded at least 10 peoples accounts on ASF into Significant profit so they have a basis to start to learn. If I can stop them and other newbies wasting a huge amount of time and good money and effort following a unproven empty method I will put up with arguments with the likes of you.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Trembling Hand,

What of any value have you really contributed I'd like to ask?

What you lack my friend is substance.

I have ACTUALLY traded at least 10 peoples accounts on ASF into Significant profit so they have a basis to start to learn. If I can stop them and other newbies wasting a huge amount of time and good money and effort following a unproven empty method I will put up with arguments with the likes of you.

This says it all.

 

[sails]

...Maybe someone like Sails or Gazelle will furnish some charts,or indeed anyone who wishes to step up to the plate.

Oh boy, if I was a Gann expert, I would gladly furnish charts, etc. But all the way through this thread I have indicated that I have lots of missing pieces to the Gann jigsaw. My lack of directional ability was one of the main reasons I studied options due to bi-directional possibilities.

If I was so good at Gann (and it worked), I wouldn't be studying Frank's ideas at the moment. The little Gann I know does not help whatsoever with forecasts either. So, please exclude me from the list of Gann experts...

 

[>Apocalypto<]

Thats what gives me the right. I have ACTUALLY traded at least 10 peoples accounts on ASF into Significant profit so they have a basis to start to learn. If I can stop them and other newbies wasting a huge amount of time and good money and effort following a unproven empty method I will put up with arguments with the likes of you. [/COLOR]

well if that is the case why come onto a Gann thread at all?

funny thing I have noticed here TH.

when you came onto the Elliot wave thread it turned into rubbish

now you come onto the Gann thread and it turns into rubbish...

i am not saying you're rubbish, but you have to look at the evidence of what your presence does...

After all the biff what has really been proven here?

cheers,

 

[Trembling Hand]

well if that is the case why come onto a Gann thread at all?

funny thing I have noticed here TH.

when you came onto the Elliot wave thread it turned into rubbish

now you come onto the Gann thread and it turns into rubbish...

i am not saying you're rubbish, but you have to look at the evidence of what your presence does...

After all the biff what has really been proven here?

cheers,

Firstly its not the Gann thread. It a thread asking is it a valid method. It would seem thats its not because NO ONE can show that they trade using it.

Don't know whats wrong with questionig people who pimp a method to show its valid

Which I have seen Nick and Tech do with EW. Without all the bluster of the Gannist.

So I should just shut up if i disagree with someone? then we can all just run around filling threads with sycophantic prase to the self proclaimed gurus??

 

[tech/a]

After all the biff what has really been proven here?

All we want is to see Gann Traded Realtime over say 6 trades to evaluate application.

This cannot be done.
Thats proven.

 

[Magdoran]

Actually looking at how most traders trade, I think your find that most if
not all trade reactively.

That’s strange, from what I can see it does a good job of forecasting
support and resistance levels in advance, and high probability turning
points in advance. And those levels dynamically move forward as
Time moves forward.

If you can’t understand that it can only move dynamically forward as
TIME moves forward, then I'm sorry if it doesn’t fit in with your illusory
square 9.



I love you and Wave picker, digging up calls from years ago to try and
prove your point.

Chart Below....

Why wouldn’t I still hold Stocks long if the market is traveling towards
the 2007 highs:- there is a breakout of the 2006 highs.

There are margin positions (leverage) and cash trading positions…(holding long term trends)

You exit margin positions on Double monthly highs, as was the case in February and re-enter on pullbacks.

Is it my imagination but those levels in the chart seem to be moving dynamically:- Support and Resistance.




Mag,

You challenged me on my method a couple of years ago and I start
my Thread, and its been going strong every since. I always put my calls
out in the market in advance, and I put my levels there in advance.

I often call the market accurately in advance, and often get it wrong,
but the important thing is, I display a method that every one can use if
they wish because it displays the key elements of trading:- SUPPORT and RESISTANCE.

Let me say that again:- the important parameters when Trading is SUPPORT and RESISTANCE

I’ve developed a method that encompasses the long-term trader, the
swing trader, and even the day-trader.

You have displayed nothing but empty words, rhetoric, and
illusory information that helps no one but to perpetuate the myth of
Gann, and I guarantee you’ll never be able to display a method that
helps anyone.


The start of this thread says….

Gann, Honestly is it a good basis for Trading?

The Answer is a BIG FRIGGIN NO!!!!!!!

That was a waste of 30 minutes of my life.

Hi Frank,

Just in the wind up I'll make a couple of comments. Firstly, I asked questions out of interest to see what you were doing. I never "challenged your method", I specifically questioned what exactly you meant by "static" vs "dynamic" time and probed a bit - politely I might add.

My comments on this thread were taking issue with the way I see time cycles which I still am convinced you don't see. I have never discounted that what you are doing has value. But I do not see it as a forecasting style, and that was the distinction I was making.

You have however had a negative, and I'd say arrogant disposition towards me right back to the reefcap days when you were quite rude. Nothing seems to have changed here. How amusing to flop your bolded "resistance and support" comment out. You really don't look outside of your own circus tent now do you? (You know I don't use or subscribe to the square of 9).

The difference between you and I is that you have a course to sell, and I don't, right? You'd traduce a whole area of knowledge in your sweeping bigoted fashion to squeeze a few dollars more out of your income base, wouldn't you?

Frankly, you've displayed your intellectual myopia for around a decade now. Some things do stay the same don't they? Nice to see you counter playing down you past failures when you have a few minor successes - sure, intra-day your system may have some application, but swing trading with derivatives?

Good to see you at your "eloquent" and "diplomatic" best Frank, and your highly analytical and informed examination of the topic.

 

[Cartman]

Frank certainly has spent a lot of time on his system, and I note it works very well for intra-day trading. You are correct, the Gann approaches are not very good for intra-day work from my perspective. I have heard of some people claiming to use some of the methods successfully, but I'm skeptical about this, but I really don't know. The way I work is certainly not intra-day.
Magdoran

i read somewhere that Gaan was reported to have made a squillion dollars over a 25 day period trading both long and short --- anyone know if thats true??

If it is, his method should certainly be handy for intraday trading as well should it not ?

i gotta say i luv cycles as much as anyone :blover: but it bemuses me a bit why we need to waffle around with finding the next big top or bottom thats maybe 3 or 6 months away??

i mean if a Gaanist is so sure that the next major time cycle is in June and that will likely be a major low, why not start scaling in now and just take advantage of their analysis

i imagine having strong views on future price points would lend itself well to option trading (If the analysis is right of course!!) ---

Wasnt the main thrust of Gaans concept simply lower highs, lower lows at reversal points etc etc ---- no rocket science there ---- seems to be a lot of unnecessary postulating going on methinks


i think Techs Blah Blah below is directed at whats on top of me LOL ---- Can we swap possies haha

 

[tech/a]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Charts??

 

[Bobby]

All we want is to see Gann Traded Realtime over say 6 trades to evaluate application.

This cannot be done.
Thats proven.

There's more chance of seeing the second coming Tech .

 

[Cartman]

PS im genuinely interested in this time stuff and why we need to spend inordinate amounts of "time" considering it?

Franks method of gauging possible price movement relative to time (and the range a given instrument has been trading in), makes perfect sense to me ---

im curious as to how time could be "considered" in another way, yet still be useful to a trader?

sometimes i think too much analysis is put b4 the horse ----- charts are what they are because the traders with the deep pockets move them around to make money --- if they aint moving, the traders will make them move cause thats all theyre interested in --- movement ---

Time just gives a relative speed to that movement ---- Momentum.