Does anyone have a link to the recording of this conference?
It's in the first post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkPvAxb9AD4
Topic: DanV will make predictions & analysis with Elliot Waves on Google Hangout (Read 5957 times)
September 30, 2014, 11:03:10 AM
It's in the first post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkPvAxb9AD4
September 30, 2014, 09:44:16 AM
> Basically what your saying is: It works, if by chance you pick the right model out of 'n' models, with 'n' approaching infinity.
No, that's actually not what he's saying at all.
If I'd get the impression that you are at least ever so slightly inclined to at least try to learn how it might work, I'd give a slightly more formal explanation of what (I believe) it does, and what it doesn't do.
But as it stands now, judging by the style of your answer, I'd waste my breath (or rather: my time, typing out a longer reply)
> Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you.
Got it. If it's not fully algorithmic, it doesn't work.
I made this analogy before, in a different discussion, but here it goes again: Tell that ("if it's not formal enough to be an algorithm/computable, it's worthless") to the early computer scientists programming chess engines with insufficient processing power to brute force a victory against a human GM (basically, the state of the world until IBM came along and set their goals). A lot of what a human GM does, apart from the inate intelligence and year after year of training is learning the theory of the game. If you'd ever happen to look into a book of, say, opening theory, you'd notice pretty quickly that the strategies outlined in there are decidedly "unalgorithmic". Didn't change the fact that those who learned the strategies were better than a purely algorithmic machine (until Moore's law took care of that, and the implementation of the theoretic aspects of chess *did* in fact progress far enough, more recently).
tl;dr If it's not algorithmic, it's difficult to show (in an isolated experiment) that it works, but from "difficult to show in isolation that it works" you shouldn't conclude that it doesn't work.
No, that's actually not what he's saying at all.
If I'd get the impression that you are at least ever so slightly inclined to at least try to learn how it might work, I'd give a slightly more formal explanation of what (I believe) it does, and what it doesn't do.
But as it stands now, judging by the style of your answer, I'd waste my breath (or rather: my time, typing out a longer reply)
> Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you.
Got it. If it's not fully algorithmic, it doesn't work.
I made this analogy before, in a different discussion, but here it goes again: Tell that ("if it's not formal enough to be an algorithm/computable, it's worthless") to the early computer scientists programming chess engines with insufficient processing power to brute force a victory against a human GM (basically, the state of the world until IBM came along and set their goals). A lot of what a human GM does, apart from the inate intelligence and year after year of training is learning the theory of the game. If you'd ever happen to look into a book of, say, opening theory, you'd notice pretty quickly that the strategies outlined in there are decidedly "unalgorithmic". Didn't change the fact that those who learned the strategies were better than a purely algorithmic machine (until Moore's law took care of that, and the implementation of the theoretic aspects of chess *did* in fact progress far enough, more recently).
tl;dr If it's not algorithmic, it's difficult to show (in an isolated experiment) that it works, but from "difficult to show in isolation that it works" you shouldn't conclude that it doesn't work.
The reason why EW analysis is done by humans is not that an algorithm would be (at first!) strategically inefficient (as in the chess example). The reason is that the starting parameters are rather arbitrary, because the EW rule set does not define them properly.
But as logic suggests, if the propositions of a statement are arbitrary then the possible conclusions are also arbitrary. So EW theory does not predict anything. It only shows arbitrary possibilities.
ya.ya.yo!
You're inching towards an improved understanding :)
1) It provides different parses of the trade data. More specifically, EW is used to: (a) (more or less) exhaustively show all possible parses (of the data, into trends), and (b) to allow the trader to list them non-redundantly. Which all by itself is already a huge help for the human brain, to look at the historic data and consider the different ways the data can be broken down into trends. (EDIT: "helpful", because it is now possible to do so without running into loops)
2) EW then suggests likely continuations, given a parse, and invalidation targets. These are essentially (in my opinion, at least) based on simple market insights/heuristics. Think heuristics along the line of "a series of lower lows forms a downtrend".
The point of those heuristics (apart from enabling the exhaustive parsing in step 1) is to list (and maybe rank, by likelihood) what in the past (across different markets) seemed to have been commonly encountered continuations given a parse of the historic data. Which means any suggested continuation is not necessarily the "right" one, and neither is any parse of the historic data. However, as long as there is *something* correctly captured about the conditional probabilities of the market in the suggested continuations, then step 2) is useful as well.
September 30, 2014, 09:20:10 AM
September 30, 2014, 09:13:57 AM
Does anyone have a link to the recording of this conference?
September 30, 2014, 09:11:54 AM
> Basically what your saying is: It works, if by chance you pick the right model out of 'n' models, with 'n' approaching infinity.
No, that's actually not what he's saying at all.
If I'd get the impression that you are at least ever so slightly inclined to at least try to learn how it might work, I'd give a slightly more formal explanation of what (I believe) it does, and what it doesn't do.
But as it stands now, judging by the style of your answer, I'd waste my breath (or rather: my time, typing out a longer reply)
> Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you.
Got it. If it's not fully algorithmic, it doesn't work.
I made this analogy before, in a different discussion, but here it goes again: Tell that ("if it's not formal enough to be an algorithm/computable, it's worthless") to the early computer scientists programming chess engines with insufficient processing power to brute force a victory against a human GM (basically, the state of the world until IBM came along and set their goals). A lot of what a human GM does, apart from the inate intelligence and year after year of training is learning the theory of the game. If you'd ever happen to look into a book of, say, opening theory, you'd notice pretty quickly that the strategies outlined in there are decidedly "unalgorithmic". Didn't change the fact that those who learned the strategies were better than a purely algorithmic machine (until Moore's law took care of that, and the implementation of the theoretic aspects of chess *did* in fact progress far enough, more recently).
tl;dr If it's not algorithmic, it's difficult to show (in an isolated experiment) that it works, but from "difficult to show in isolation that it works" you shouldn't conclude that it doesn't work.
No, that's actually not what he's saying at all.
If I'd get the impression that you are at least ever so slightly inclined to at least try to learn how it might work, I'd give a slightly more formal explanation of what (I believe) it does, and what it doesn't do.
But as it stands now, judging by the style of your answer, I'd waste my breath (or rather: my time, typing out a longer reply)
> Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you.
Got it. If it's not fully algorithmic, it doesn't work.
I made this analogy before, in a different discussion, but here it goes again: Tell that ("if it's not formal enough to be an algorithm/computable, it's worthless") to the early computer scientists programming chess engines with insufficient processing power to brute force a victory against a human GM (basically, the state of the world until IBM came along and set their goals). A lot of what a human GM does, apart from the inate intelligence and year after year of training is learning the theory of the game. If you'd ever happen to look into a book of, say, opening theory, you'd notice pretty quickly that the strategies outlined in there are decidedly "unalgorithmic". Didn't change the fact that those who learned the strategies were better than a purely algorithmic machine (until Moore's law took care of that, and the implementation of the theoretic aspects of chess *did* in fact progress far enough, more recently).
tl;dr If it's not algorithmic, it's difficult to show (in an isolated experiment) that it works, but from "difficult to show in isolation that it works" you shouldn't conclude that it doesn't work.
The reason why EW analysis is done by humans is not that an algorithm would be (at first!) strategically inefficient (as in the chess example). The reason is that the starting parameters are rather arbitrary, because the EW rule set does not define them properly.
But as logic suggests, if the propositions of a statement are arbitrary then the possible conclusions are also arbitrary. So EW theory does not predict anything. It only shows arbitrary possibilities.
ya.ya.yo!
September 30, 2014, 08:56:11 AM
So what's your "excuse" for over investing at such a high price that you can't handle it? UMADBRO?
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Is this intended to be some weirdo-style ad hominem attack?
Yes, I'll be the first to admit that I had wrong counts, but what about the other 98% of the time? You know... When I was calling this market to the point that I was accused of being a whale manipulator?! People like you say analysts see what they want to see.
I think you shouldn't take yourself too seriously. Relax. I did not even read whatever predictions you may have made. My criticism was targeted at Elliott Wave theory in general. Your statements were only used to exemplify the fundamental problem of Elliott Wave theory as an esoteric pseudo-science.
What about how you choose to ignore what what you don't want to see? Kinda tame thing, right? 
The fact that I disapprove something is not equivalent to not wanting to see it. Actually, I think it's a rightful job to warn others to not fall for unproven prediction methods, because using such methods may inflict serious financial damage. So I don't want to ignore it, I want it vanish in the real world!
As far as I know this is a Bitcoin discussion board and not an assembly of Elliott Wave cultists. So you will have to live with dissent.
I guess there is no helping the ignorant.
Finally, a statement with some truth in it.
ya.ya.yo!
September 30, 2014, 08:31:56 AM
It works all the same if you manage to get it right on the first try. There are a lot of factors that go into getting the right count, and because of this, some of those factors can be overlooked quite easily. In my thread I showed that it works. I also had a couple of bad counts that needed revision. This happens, and once you are on the right count, you can continue to track the movements with far greater accuracy than any amount of coin flipping or luck.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
Basically what your saying is: It works, if by chance you pick the right model out of 'n' models, with 'n' approaching infinity.
Doing "revisions" is admitting that the model doesn't work and that the prediction was wrong.
He shows different possibilities too.
That's how these experts do business: Show many possibilities, hoping that at least one of them will materialize at least to some extent. Then they say "I'm an expert, told ya so!". But such kind of "analysis" is deceptive crap. It has no value and predicts nothing.
Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you. There would be no "bad counts" or similar excuses, because everything would be clearly defined. But that's not the case. Essentially Elliott Wave theory hides its esoteric nature behind a fog of a pseudo-complex, loosely defined rule set.
ya.ya.yo!
> Basically what your saying is: It works, if by chance you pick the right model out of 'n' models, with 'n' approaching infinity.
No, that's actually not what he's saying at all.
If I'd get the impression that you are at least ever so slightly inclined to at least try to learn how it might work, I'd give a slightly more formal explanation of what (I believe) it does, and what it doesn't do.
But as it stands now, judging by the style of your answer, I'd waste my breath (or rather: my time, typing out a longer reply)
> Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you.
Got it. If it's not fully algorithmic, it doesn't work.
I made this analogy before, in a different discussion, but here it goes again: Tell that ("if it's not formal enough to be an algorithm/computable, it's worthless") to the early computer scientists programming chess engines with insufficient processing power to brute force a victory against a human GM (basically, the state of the world until IBM came along and set their goals). A lot of what a human GM does, apart from the inate intelligence and year after year of training is learning the theory of the game. If you'd ever happen to look into a book of, say, opening theory, you'd notice pretty quickly that the strategies outlined in there are decidedly "unalgorithmic". Didn't change the fact that those who learned the strategies were better than a purely algorithmic machine (until Moore's law took care of that, and the implementation of the theoretic aspects of chess *did* in fact progress far enough, more recently).
tl;dr If it's not algorithmic, it's difficult to show (in an isolated experiment) that it works, but from "difficult to show in isolation that it works" you shouldn't conclude that it doesn't work.
September 30, 2014, 08:19:51 AM
It works all the same if you manage to get it right on the first try. There are a lot of factors that go into getting the right count, and because of this, some of those factors can be overlooked quite easily. In my thread I showed that it works. I also had a couple of bad counts that needed revision. This happens, and once you are on the right count, you can continue to track the movements with far greater accuracy than any amount of coin flipping or luck.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
Basically what your saying is: It works, if by chance you pick the right model out of 'n' models, with 'n' approaching infinity.
Doing "revisions" is admitting that the model doesn't work and that the prediction was wrong.
He shows different possibilities too.
That's how these experts do business: Show many possibilities, hoping that at least one of them will materialize at least to some extent. Then they say "I'm an expert, told ya so!". But such kind of "analysis" is deceptive crap. It has no value and predicts nothing.
Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you. There would be no "bad counts" or similar excuses, because everything would be clearly defined. But that's not the case. Essentially Elliott Wave theory hides its esoteric nature behind a fog of a pseudo-complex, loosely defined rule set.
ya.ya.yo!
So what's your "excuse" for over investing at such a high price that you can't handle it? UMADBRO? I guess there is no helping the ignorant.
Yes, I'll be the first to admit that I had wrong counts, but what about the other 98% of the time? You know... When I was calling this market to the point that I was accused of being a whale manipulator?! People like you say analysts see what they want to see. What about how you choose to ignore what what you don't want to see? Kinda tame thing, right?
September 30, 2014, 07:53:09 AM
It works all the same if you manage to get it right on the first try. There are a lot of factors that go into getting the right count, and because of this, some of those factors can be overlooked quite easily. In my thread I showed that it works. I also had a couple of bad counts that needed revision. This happens, and once you are on the right count, you can continue to track the movements with far greater accuracy than any amount of coin flipping or luck.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
Basically what your saying is: It works, if by chance you pick the right model out of 'n' models, with 'n' approaching infinity.
Doing "revisions" is admitting that the model doesn't work and that the prediction was wrong.
He shows different possibilities too.
That's how these experts do business: Show many possibilities, hoping that at least one of them will materialize at least to some extent. Then they say "I'm an expert, told ya so!". But such kind of "analysis" is deceptive crap. It has no value and predicts nothing.
Again, if Elliott Wave theory would work you would have an algorithm to do the prediction job for you. There would be no "bad counts" or similar excuses, because everything would be clearly defined. But that's not the case. Essentially Elliott Wave theory hides its esoteric nature behind a fog of a pseudo-complex, loosely defined rule set.
ya.ya.yo!
September 29, 2014, 11:03:27 PM
He doesn't really point out numbers, if not just to indicate the trend. He repeats many times in the video that EW are useful to have an idea of what the trend will be like, once some of the guidelines can be confirmed. He basically said that in this cycle we will have another dip (the one we are in right now) which could stop at ~300$ or go even lower, then we will have another up phase and the cycle should then end with another much stronger bear phase. He shows different possibilities too.
As I said in my original post i'm not particularly fond of EW, but it's always good to have a different perspective.
As I said in my original post i'm not particularly fond of EW, but it's always good to have a different perspective.
September 29, 2014, 06:07:48 PM
capitulation down to ~300$
When does he predict capitulation down to ~300$? Sorry, but I don't have time to watch the video.
September 29, 2014, 05:48:50 PM
Watch from 50 minute to 60 minute mark, i think he makes his prediction there.
I think EW can work in the short-term, but not in a long term prediction in a revolutionary new technology, that is based on its network effect.
I think EW can work in the short-term, but not in a long term prediction in a revolutionary new technology, that is based on its network effect.
It works all the same if you manage to get it right on the first try. There are a lot of factors that go into getting the right count, and because of this, some of those factors can be overlooked quite easily. In my thread I showed that it works. I also had a couple of bad counts that needed revision. This happens, and once you are on the right count, you can continue to track the movements with far greater accuracy than any amount of coin flipping or luck.
The problem with such a long term count is that there can be many paths to the same end. So getting it right, from the start, is very difficult.
I didn't watch the video (I don't have two hours to waste), but I think he is crazy making such an outlandish count so far ahead of time, but to each their own. He loves his complex corrections from what I have seen.
September 29, 2014, 05:37:43 PM
Watch from 50 minute to 60 minute mark, i think he makes his prediction there.
I think EW can work in the short-term, but not in a long term prediction in a revolutionary new technology, that is based on its network effect.
I think EW can work in the short-term, but not in a long term prediction in a revolutionary new technology, that is based on its network effect.
September 29, 2014, 05:27:59 PM
capitulation down to ~300$, then wild up to 700-1000$ around march of 2015, then down again to ~240$
That's the prediction?
(Sorry vid too long to watch for me.)
Rest assured that the Elliot Wave expert will "adjust" his prediction several times to changing market conditions. The very fact that this happens invalidates the ability of Elliot Wave theory to predict anything.
ya.ya.yo!
September 29, 2014, 05:24:05 PM
DanV's.
Just watch his youtube video ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkPvAxb9AD4 watch from minute 50
Just watch his youtube video ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkPvAxb9AD4 watch from minute 50
September 29, 2014, 05:16:14 PM
capitulation down to ~300$, then wild up to 700-1000$ around march of 2015, then down again to ~240$
Is that your prediction or DanV's prediction?
September 29, 2014, 10:57:11 AM
capitulation down to ~300$, then wild up to 700-1000$ around march of 2015, then down again to ~240$
September 29, 2014, 10:09:05 AM
If Fabrizio89 posted DanV's predictions here we could check out how accurate they turn out to be.
September 29, 2014, 09:30:10 AM
hmm, thanks for the heads up. probably won't get much love from this forum, 
, but i've been looking to learn more about Elliot Wave theory, and he seems to know his stuff. i've been picking up a lot from RyNinDaCleM's thread too.
, but i've been looking to learn more about Elliot Wave theory, and he seems to know his stuff. i've been picking up a lot from RyNinDaCleM's thread too.Not much love - sure, because Elliot Wave theory is not an approach that can be subjected to scientific test. The problem is that there is no clear standardization of how to count the waves. So you have to trust an Elliot Wave guru with a "proven" success record.
If the method would really predict anything reliably, you wouldn't need a guru, you would have an algorithm.
Bitcoiners don't trust. They distrust until they see at least six confirmations.
ya.ya.yo!
September 29, 2014, 03:06:24 AM
I'm catching up the hangout now. But TBH, feeling a tad skeptical
Quote
"The Elliott Wave Principle, as popularly practiced, is not a legitimate theory, but a story, and a compelling one that is eloquently told by Robert Prechter. The account is especially persuasive because EWP has the seemingly remarkable ability to fit any segment of market history down to its most minute fluctuations. I contend this is made possible by the method's loosely defined rules and the ability to postulate a large number of nested waves of varying magnitude. This gives the Elliott analyst the same freedom and flexibility that allowed pre-Copernican astronomers to explain all observed planet movements even though their underlying theory of an Earth-centered universe was wrong"
-- David Aronson
-- David Aronson
Jump to: