Here is a link to Scott Carney's own web-page, supposedly something he has written himself:
harmonictrader.weebl...ley-controversy.html
I want to outline something interesting here. I quote from the article above:
''It is important to note that there are others who have assigned different Fibonacci numbers to the framework of the Gartley Pattern. However, they have used a variety of Fibonacci numbers at the D points, essentially labeling any AB=CD pattern as a Gartley if it completes at a 0.618 or 0.786 without regard for the precise alignment. This has created much confusion among the technical community and it has challenged the reputation of the pattern.''
Before going further into this, I also want to note a key takeaway from this quote. When he says that there are ''others'' who have assigned different Fibonacci numbers to Gartley patterns, he is talking about Larry Pesavento.
Before ''The Harmonic Trader'' was released by Carney in 1998, Pesavento had already published books on the subject in 1997.
It did not take Carney long to trademark harmonic patterns thus eliminating Pesavento's chances of ever mentioning it again.
In the article above, Carney talks about people spreading misinformation, when in fact it turns out he's actually the one doing it.
He went on to market it, and of course the brokers loved it!
So enough about all this controversy.... Lets look at the chart!
Here we see what appears to be a Gartley pattern formation with a completion at the 0.618 retracement! I wonder what Carney has to say about that?
Should you wait for the 0.786 retracement to enter as the mainstream harmonic trading strategies suggest?
Pesavento simply explained that what we are looking for is golden triangles
Carney makes it very complicated.
What are your thoughts on The Great Gartley Controversy??
Leave a comment below
harmonictrader.weebl...ley-controversy.html
I want to outline something interesting here. I quote from the article above:
''It is important to note that there are others who have assigned different Fibonacci numbers to the framework of the Gartley Pattern. However, they have used a variety of Fibonacci numbers at the D points, essentially labeling any AB=CD pattern as a Gartley if it completes at a 0.618 or 0.786 without regard for the precise alignment. This has created much confusion among the technical community and it has challenged the reputation of the pattern.''
Before going further into this, I also want to note a key takeaway from this quote. When he says that there are ''others'' who have assigned different Fibonacci numbers to Gartley patterns, he is talking about Larry Pesavento.
Before ''The Harmonic Trader'' was released by Carney in 1998, Pesavento had already published books on the subject in 1997.
It did not take Carney long to trademark harmonic patterns thus eliminating Pesavento's chances of ever mentioning it again.
In the article above, Carney talks about people spreading misinformation, when in fact it turns out he's actually the one doing it.
He went on to market it, and of course the brokers loved it!
So enough about all this controversy.... Lets look at the chart!
Here we see what appears to be a Gartley pattern formation with a completion at the 0.618 retracement! I wonder what Carney has to say about that?
Should you wait for the 0.786 retracement to enter as the mainstream harmonic trading strategies suggest?
Pesavento simply explained that what we are looking for is golden triangles
Carney makes it very complicated.
What are your thoughts on The Great Gartley Controversy??
Leave a comment below
Comment:
Comment:
Here we see a three drives top up to the 0.618 retracement to complete the Gartley. AB=CD coming in the 0.618: