tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,417
- Reactions
- 6,356
I think Gann was quite possibly one of the first if not the first Technical Analyst.
it was back in around 1900.
No computers no ticker tape. All of his charts would have had to have been hand drawn.
No testing software no massive data bases and no modern mathematics.
remember there are no planes in the sky and the sophistication of man in the markets was way behind what it is now.
He was a forward thinker who recognised tops and bottoms and turned to the most sophisticated tools he had knowledge of.
GEOMETERY.
I'm certain he was intrigued with highs and lows and I'm sure he saw the same rhythm in charts we all see after you've looked at 10,000 or so of them.
He applied his geometry using the Square rectangle and Circle to find commonalities in those highs and lows. Now he wouldn't have had 2000 charts to keep up dated possibly 50 or so as that would be all he could have recorded physically.
He found common "Points of interest" in his charts but also found that one "rule" couldn't be applied across the board--chart to chart.
So he found more ways of explaining How and when the next high or low would appear.
Applying Fans,boxes,angles,cycles,grids,lines,Ellipses,Circles and astrology.
Every time a theory wouldn't fit with his analysis he would find something that would explain (in hind site) why the high OR low occurred at that point.
Nothing was common enough for him to design a trading method.
Simply Gann never had one. I believe he died still looking.
His money was made (and indeed that's in dispute) from swing trading.
In 1900 when Gann presented his amazing technical skills it would have been seen as incredible. There was and never will be anything like it. Because that was the best and pretty well only form of technical analysis seen.
So complex was it that to the common trader it seemed like a language from the gods.
So accurate because there it was shown on a chart---and if you work back then you can see clearly how it was calculated. No one really knew what they were looking at. All they knew was the explaination was remarkable and even if there was another explaination for the next one (high or low) it didnt matter--because there it is!
If you look at Old style analysis like Edwards and Magee which was first published in 48 we see patterns appearing Wedges/Pennants/Triangles/Flags amazing formations which explain EVERYTHING---dont they?
But along comes the computer and Millions (quite possibly) who take up the Technical challenge,advancing to Mathematical application of OSCILLATORS,these truly are the Modern day manifestation of mathematical genius applied to the markets----arent they?
But now Gann can be analysed by 1000s
It can be checked and traded by many.
Understood for what it really is.
In my view an uncompleted work,a continuing and fruitless search for the ability to force upon the market a set of rules that it would abide by.
So we the trader can take advantage of it.
He never found it.
No one has and I'm afraid no one will.
But analysis will evolve.
Today we have VSA and Neural networks and tommorow something else will be developed by some genius with a theory that when applied gives an edge---even if only in his mind.
Enjoy the journey
it was back in around 1900.
No computers no ticker tape. All of his charts would have had to have been hand drawn.
No testing software no massive data bases and no modern mathematics.
remember there are no planes in the sky and the sophistication of man in the markets was way behind what it is now.
He was a forward thinker who recognised tops and bottoms and turned to the most sophisticated tools he had knowledge of.
GEOMETERY.
I'm certain he was intrigued with highs and lows and I'm sure he saw the same rhythm in charts we all see after you've looked at 10,000 or so of them.
He applied his geometry using the Square rectangle and Circle to find commonalities in those highs and lows. Now he wouldn't have had 2000 charts to keep up dated possibly 50 or so as that would be all he could have recorded physically.
He found common "Points of interest" in his charts but also found that one "rule" couldn't be applied across the board--chart to chart.
So he found more ways of explaining How and when the next high or low would appear.
Applying Fans,boxes,angles,cycles,grids,lines,Ellipses,Circles and astrology.
Every time a theory wouldn't fit with his analysis he would find something that would explain (in hind site) why the high OR low occurred at that point.
Nothing was common enough for him to design a trading method.
Simply Gann never had one. I believe he died still looking.
His money was made (and indeed that's in dispute) from swing trading.
In 1900 when Gann presented his amazing technical skills it would have been seen as incredible. There was and never will be anything like it. Because that was the best and pretty well only form of technical analysis seen.
So complex was it that to the common trader it seemed like a language from the gods.
So accurate because there it was shown on a chart---and if you work back then you can see clearly how it was calculated. No one really knew what they were looking at. All they knew was the explaination was remarkable and even if there was another explaination for the next one (high or low) it didnt matter--because there it is!
If you look at Old style analysis like Edwards and Magee which was first published in 48 we see patterns appearing Wedges/Pennants/Triangles/Flags amazing formations which explain EVERYTHING---dont they?
But along comes the computer and Millions (quite possibly) who take up the Technical challenge,advancing to Mathematical application of OSCILLATORS,these truly are the Modern day manifestation of mathematical genius applied to the markets----arent they?
But now Gann can be analysed by 1000s
It can be checked and traded by many.
Understood for what it really is.
In my view an uncompleted work,a continuing and fruitless search for the ability to force upon the market a set of rules that it would abide by.
So we the trader can take advantage of it.
He never found it.
No one has and I'm afraid no one will.
But analysis will evolve.
Today we have VSA and Neural networks and tommorow something else will be developed by some genius with a theory that when applied gives an edge---even if only in his mind.
Enjoy the journey