Talk:Fibonacci retracement

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pseudo-scientific

Fibonacci retracement is a pseudo-scientific technique on a par with financial astrology, Gann theory, ermanometry etc. This ABSOLUTELY needs to be stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.144.211 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that any predictive analysis tool is pseudo-scientific or may be better described as a probability tool that measures tendencies (support and resistance levels) in the financial market based on technical and fundamental analysis. --Taigenbdman (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not something like Self-fulfilling prophecy? If a remarkable number of business people believe to this religion, it could really work :-) Franp9am (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? If everyone is expecting for a retracement it's not necessarily going to happen. Paum89 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, here is a computational "proof" of the efficacy of the Fibonacci Retracement: https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=business_pubs

Personally I don't know what to make of it, except that it does indeed seems to work in some way, at least if you're willing to forego 100% accuracy. Try it out on the throughs and highs of the Bitcoin quote since December 2017, for instance on TradingView /chart/?symbol=BITFINEX%3ABTCUSD

However whether it works because it's actually linked to mathematics or nature, or because if it's the result of some sort of mass suggestion, I do not know. In any case it certainly deserves an entry here on Wikipedia, whether you "believe" in it or not. :) --Kebman (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's very hard to find sources about this. The people who don't take it seriously don't write about it, and the people who do take it seriously write as if it's unquestionably true. Paum89 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these links may help?

--Kebman (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]