Dan: The ratios that I questioned as "fibonacci" ratios were these:
.786, .886, 1.272, .707, 1.414, .414, 2.24, 3.14
none of which can be derived from non-adjacent numbers in the fibonacci series using the method you describe.
Walt Houston further insists that it is an error to mix ratios from the fractional series, such as 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, with ratios produced from the sectioning of the Golden Section, as I clumsily describe it in layman's terms, or what he calls the "Fibonacci Cascade". So Walt says it is a mistake to call .50, 2.0, 1.50, etc. fibonacci ratios.
I must confess, I would prefer to leave these details to you mathheads <GG>.
I guess one takeaway from this whole discussion has been that the use and labeling of "fibonacci ratios" is pretty arbitary in technical analysis, but the fact that so many people seem to use them makes this all the more surprising. |
