|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Sonny:
Let me get up on my soapbox and pontificate [big grin :)]
Reading Gann is like reading Gudjieff. Both are very difficult. Both wrote
in an obscure arcane manner and never really clarified their ideas so that
ordinary mortals could understand. This is also true in other fields, for
example mathematics (see Ince's books on differential equations, or the IEEE
biography of Oliver Heaviside) or academia where some profs delight in doing
this to their students.
If anyone decodes Gann and uncovers the theoretical basis for his methods,
then they may become useful tools for all of us to use.
The stories of Gann predicting the market crash of 1929 may be just another
story. Bear in mind that reporters at that time were terribly underpaid and
readily accepted gifts, so that they wrote what they were paid for. All
these glowing predictions if true should have made Gann the ruler of world
finance.
A case in point, Warren Buffett amassed a very large fortune by mostly using
relatively straightforward methods. Take a look at mutual funds. There are
TA oriented funds, fundamental oriented funds, space science type funds, are
there any Gann oriented funds and how well are they doing?
Has anyone amassed a large fortune, or even a fortune, by using Gann methods
except by selling courses, books or newsletters?
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sonnysark@xxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Elliott Wave
> Thanks for all the opinions on EW...How does everyone feel about Gann's
work
> in comparison? Most would also say Gann studies are also subjective and
> complicated. -Sonny-
|