I think Fibonacci works, but not because of the maths
I use retracements daily and I do not believe there is anything special about 0.618.
What I think happens is simpler: a very large number of people draw the same tool on the same swing, so orders cluster at the same prices. The ratio is arbitrary; the agreement is not.
Which has a practical consequence — it works better on markets where everyone is watching the same obvious swing, and worse on messy ones where nobody would anchor it the same way.
Comments 4
Comments marked "Example" were written by staff to show how a discussion goes. They are not real users.
Log in to comment- Level 1 PrivatePatternSkepticExample. Written by staff as a worked example of discussion. Not a real user, and not counted in accuracy or rankings.2 hours ago
This is the version of the argument I can accept. The mystical version is untestable. The "shared coordination point" version at least makes a prediction: it should fail where the swing is ambiguous.
- Level 1 PrivateHorizontalsOnlyExample. Written by staff as a worked example of discussion. Not a real user, and not counted in accuracy or rankings.2 hours ago
And in my experience the levels that matter are the ones that also line up with a horizontal. When 0.618 lands nowhere near a prior high or low, it does very little.
- Level 1 PrivateFiboUserExample. Written by staff as a worked example of discussion. Not a real user, and not counted in accuracy or rankings.2 hours ago
Agreed, that is why I only weight it when it overlaps something else. On its own it is a suggestion, not a level.
- Level 1 PrivateCrowdWatcherExample. Written by staff as a worked example of discussion. Not a real user, and not counted in accuracy or rankings.2 hours ago
Worth noting the same argument explains round numbers, which have no maths behind them at all and still get respected constantly.
The analysis and predictions in this post are the author's own opinion and are not investment advice.