Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Are Fibonacci retracements and projections useful?
Hilarious seeing people desperately trying to convince others their mumbo jumbo is the holy grail. Winners rarely, if ever, do that. They keep their methods to themselves and keep making money. Cheers.
You are never in the wrong place... but sometimes you are in the right place looking at things in the wrong way.
What happens when winners don't really know what exactly their method is, they just compile information and experience without needing some sort of specific pattern or indication?
Very rarely do you ever see anyone trade exactly the same way. Even with the highly popular methodologies over the years everyone still would come up with different entries and exits.
R.I.P. Joseph Bach (Itchymoku), 1987-2018.
Please visit this thread for more information.
Chill out, folks. Who cares about your precious opinions? A little live and let live, a little mutual tolerance, a little return to maturity, would be welcome in this thread.
Who knew that something as obscure as fibs would spark such emotion? As well as such discourtesy?
It is sad when people take lively debate and discourse as flame wars. You wouldn't hang for five mins at my dinner table. Tiger and Roy are big boys and I am sure can handle such debate.
The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.
Has anyone considered the fact that the markets are man made and not natural, hence the argument it appears in nature and therefore appears in markets is completely moot.
Thought I would fan the flames a bit and see what happens.
