One of the biggest fallacies of Gann's
Square of Nine is that we don't know WHY it works, if at all it works! We have
no conclusive evidence as to what factors make this point work nor do we have
enough logic to understand why it works. But we have seen it time and again
that this Square of Nine has worked well and forms a unique pattern.
The problem with showing the evidences of
work as the evidence of logic is that if you pick any pattern of numbers or
geometry, with sufficient number of tries and data we will have something that
will FIT the same logic as Gann's square of Nine. Therefore, for all things
said and done, Square of Nine looks like a smart approximation of number series
which is turns up correct on most instances. And more and more it turns up
correct, more it will become reliable because of self-filling tendency
(prophecy) of traders and speculators.
Now lets hit some messy details:
This is looking to turn the theory on its
head.. i.e. if you were to invent a random series of numbers and log them into
a Square of Nine chart, then what would be the ratio of its successes to
failures. For one, since we are picking up closely associated but random
numbers, there will be a visible and overt pattern. And more data that you can
massage and fit into the Square of Nine chart, more will be its ratios of
successes.
Therefore, Square of Nine, per se, has no
unique quality or ability to estimate the supports, resistances or turning
points. Given enough number of shots, they are bound to get it right at some
point.
Now, having said that, let’s assume the
above theory of random numbers coming correct is true [which it is, with enough
data massage] Now, the interesting question is: what is the ratio of
correctness / probability of hits between each set of random numbers on the
Square of Nine? The first logical deduction is that all the numbers which are
in some form of higher harmonics – like Prime numbers, Fibonacci, Pi multiples –
to have a higher edge of becoming the best number series.
Now let’s deduct further, which of these – Fibonacci,
Primes and PIs – do the Squares give the most successes to? The data, as
explained before, is unexplainable i.e. skew-able depending on your liking / prejudice of number sets.
However, that is not the point of this article. The real point that we want to
make here is: Square of Nines does not have a “Magic Placements” of numbers
either by design or by angle, however a number becomes relevant by its sheer
positioning in the entire scheme of things AND that the way Gann used the
Square of Nine was to distill and adopt the best method of using the Square of
Nine (and not the only method)
Conclusion:
Gann has done lot of work, and mainly (perhaps)
by common sense, to distill the number sets that work well together with other
numbers on Square of Nine. Together this number set, (probably) has higher
level of successes than other number sets. It’s just that most of the numbers
of this numbers-set happen to lie of the perpendicular axis (which is again not
surprising!) It is also highly dependent on the Point of Origination on the
chart.
Therefore we can conclude that though Gann’s
Square of Nine does not offer us some real conclusive evidences of its nature
of work, seems to come correct on a higher than usual numbers all because of
the fallacy of perception.
This by the nature of above explanation CAN
be rectified and corrected off the perception differences, however that
requires a different way of tackling the above problem. We will discuss these
different ways and most busting of Square of Nine, in subsequent articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment