|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2016-5-16 16:36
|
显示全部楼层
We agree with the detail of this assessment (although we detect Schwager is displaying a hint of scepticism toward any method that has as its basis cycles, or, dare we say the word, astro, and therefore feel he may not be an impartial judge). That said, though, it is a fundamental truth that does make Gann lines very subjective indeed.
It would be okay if Gann had given students a method by which they could standardize scale, a magic formula that could be applied uniformly to all markets at all times and would consequently show that markets did, in fact, respond to the Gann angles. But in all the Gann material we have studied we did not find a way to do this, and furthermore, we have not seen any purveyor of Gann methodology come up with a way to standardize scale.
During our early years of research, we were trying to pick tops and bottoms with the 'Gann square of 12', an acrylic square of about 24 inches and overlaid with the angles of trend that Gann maintained were key. We guess it is fair to say that it is not important to anyone that we could not make it work. Maybe it indicates the level of our research abilities, but we do agree with Seykota and Eckhardt about its subjectivity.
(An interesting aside is that we have a copy of an original letter from Gann to one of his clients that was included in some of Gann's manuscript material, in which he is offering to sell this new tool for the sum of $4,000. we don't know how much 4,000 1930's dollars would represent in today's money, but it would be an awful lot of money and this shows just how much money Gann must have made from marketing his tools and services. It makes our modern day marketers of trading systems look decidedly small minded.)
But if the likes of Seykota, Eckhardt and Schwager are basing their assessment of Gann just on the Gann lines, then we believe they are making a fundamental error of judgement. In fact, we would go as far as to say that anyone judging Gann just by one or two aspects of his work cannot make a worthwhile judgement. The real secrets of Gann were hidden.
Gann states this himself, and it is logical to assume this. Almost anyone possessing knowledge as powerful as Gann obviously did is not going to openly reveal these secrets to the general public. And whilst we have not been successful understanding much of Gann's work, there is one subject Gann studied about which we do understand very well. It is the elliptical cycles, the cornerstone of the money making charts service.
When you have studied Gann's work, you get the feeling that there is something missing. We believe Gann didn't openly reveal his best tools, and we believe elliptical cycles are one component he deliberately did not reveal. So, what is the truth? Did Gann make a lot of money from markets? Could he forecast the future price of markets? If he was flying around in his private, chauffeur-driven, plane (as he did); did the money to pay for that come from trading or marketing?
There doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence that Gann did make a lot of money from trading, but that's not to say he didn't. It is claimed by some that his son, John, who worked in his father's business for some years, maintained that W D Gann was unsuccessful making money from trading, but successful making money from marketing his services. But this claim does not appear to be verified. There is evidence that Gann left a miserably small estate when he died - a figure of something like $150,000. But even that does not prove he didn't make millions from trading.
So, it can be seen there is a lot of mystery in the public arena about this aspect of Gann's life. But on the question of forecasting future price, there is no doubt about Gann's ability. Here there is abundant evidence of his unique prowess. One only needs to read his market forecast for the year 1929 to appreciate this. It is a very detailed, expansive document that shows at least that an awful lot of scientific work had gone into its compilation. Gann could, and did, predict price levels, sometimes with time window attachments, that turned out to be incredibly accurate.
We have not seen anyone attempt these feats since, with the exception of his contemporary, George Bayer. So, if Gann could do this, surely he must have taken considerable profits from trading. Granted, it doesn't follow that a good forecaster will automatically become a profitable trader. This may come as a surprise to some, but ask any successful futures trader about this and we are sure he will agree. The best forecast in the world can produce a loss if trade management is not executed with expertise. But we can't imagine that a man with Gann's knowledge and experience didn't have an excellent grasp of trade management. After all, he wrote books on the subject. In a nutshell, when you look at the incredible accuracy of his documented forecasts, together with the few verifiable trading records on hand, you cannot draw any other conclusion that he would have had to be the biggest dill in the world not to have made a fortune trading during his career.
Gann did not obtain his knowledge from within. He studied ancient writings to obtain his knowledge. He was a 're-discoverer' of knowledge, knowledge that had been hidden during the previous centuries for reasons that we can only speculate. And like Gann, George Bayer based his life-long studies on much the same source of knowledge. If you hadn't heard of Gann before now, then you are much less likely to have heard of George Bayer. I suspect that there are many out there with a reasonable knowledge of Gann and his work and who have not heard of George Bayer.
On the one hand, there's an industry built up around Gann and his work, while at the same time Bayer is known by very few. This is somewhat surprising because in our view the work Bayer did, during much the same period as Gann, is much less subjective than was Gann's. We can read Bayer's manuscripts and make sense of most subjects he deals with. The same cannot be said of Gann's writings.
Maybe Bayer's comparative obscurity has less to do with the value of his work but more to do with Gann's undoubted marketing drive and flair. Bayer did market his services because he refers to having 300 clients taking his forecasts, but there is no evidence that Bayer sold courses and products to anywhere near the extent that Gann did, let alone at the prices. In reading the work of the two men we can get a handle on the type of person Bayer was and we get the impression it would not have been in his nature to push marketing beyond a respectable point; in fact, in his writings he is critical of those who do.
Whilst one can find a reasonable amount of information about Gann from books and the internet, the same is not true of Bayer. Little information is available about his life. We know a fair bit about his work but not much about his life. We understand that he emigrated from Germany , arriving in New York , probably at the turn of the 20 th century. He wrote a book called George Wollsten, the object of which we are sure was an exercise in writing a story in code form, a story behind which there is a hidden message, information on how to calculate the natural cycles of markets.
It is said that the veneer in this book depicts his life. To what extent this is true, we can't be sure, but it seems likely that he started out as a stock broker in New York , gravitated to analysis and became interested in the effect of natural cycles on markets. Later he moved to California and lived in Carmel by the Sea. He was an avid researcher. He spent most of his adult life researching his subject, from dawn until the small hours of the morning, day in, day out, until he died during the mid fifties, somewhat before his three score plus ten. Bayer's forecasts were as incredible as were Gann's. They are documented so there is no question about their accuracy. Bayer often predicted the high of a market to within a whisker, and right on the day. From what we have seen of the forecasts of both men, they stand as equals.
But in the area of research, we think Bayer stands tall. Bayer's whole life was research, while Gann diverted his attention to other fields from time to time. As to Bayer's trading record, there seems to be even less evidence on this matter than was the case for Gann. But the same could be true about Bayer. He was such an incredible forecaster he, like Gann, must have made money from the markets where he wanted. Based on our understanding of Bayer it was that he didn't court money and fame to the extent that Gann did.
We think Bayer traded to pay the bills and cover a few conservative luxuries. Research is what drove Bayer, not money. He did seek recognition for his work, though. Although he did not like to enter into the public arena, there were occasions he went against this and we are sure it was because he wanted other people to know the truth about cycles. Although contemporaries, there is no evidence the two men ever met. Therefore, we find it interesting that they both shared knowledge of elliptical cycles. Of course, Bayer referred to these in his manuscripts, but there is no mention in any Gann material we have seen. So, there you have it, our take on the two men we believe possessed valuable knowledge on the effect of natural cycles on man and markets. |
|
|
[复制链接]
发表于 2016-5-16 13:43
