Yes sadly this is the same old story about Gann. The life long quest for holy grail which will keep the reader buying more cryptic magic puzzle books and courses for rest of his life.
Thank you, I think you answered the question about Gann and why this so called 'best trader' should be avoided.
Now for Ray and his Orb theory (cycle length can fluctuate with 1/6th range)... it is true cycle can fluctuate but I also call this trading book authors perfect "large margin for error"
Ok, let's test his research about cycles. I think the orb theory should become apparent.
Let us check his Gold cycles first, since it is the current most hyped bull market asset.
First we will check medium term daily Gold data 1975 until 2025, we will look for his cycles < 3 years.
You see there is many cycles detected. I choose only Ray's cycles. None of this shows consistent, correlated cycle to Gold price. Maybe his first 50 week cycle (350d) exist with 9 win and 5 loss, but will you trade this 0.7% correlation 🤣
Let's also check long term Gold cycles, I have monthly gold data from 1790 until 2025, so 235 years data.
I see 7.74y cycle, maybe it is within the Orb (7.16y - 8.5y) from Rays expected 7.83y cycle, but it is also poor quality and currently inverted negative cycle. Do you really want to trade based on 'static cycle from a book' with 9 win and 12 loss ?
Maybe the 12.1 year Gold cycle is strongest. Why this is not in Ray's book list ?
----------------------------
Ok, let us also check Copper, since I know it has better cycles then Gold. In fact, trading Gold is really a dumb idea in my opinion since the Gold cycle are highly variable compared to other assets.
Here is Ray's list.
I have medium term data for Copper, daily from 1988 until 2025. It is enough to test his first cycles.
I put Rays cycles, not very good if you simply use static cycle in a book.
How about if we also tune the amount of overtone and backtest period on Rays cycle, to improve
Sorry, still not very good. Reader paying attention might notice 46.7m is within "Orb" large margin for error (39m to 54m), but others are totally useless and there is much better cycle we can find ourself.
How about instead we just use recommendation by Timing Solution for Copper.
Of course 34d/155d is very good, but it is of course not even in this experts book. Why is this? Because short cycle is best for trading, but short cycle will soon expire so it cannot be used to sell your book.
----------------------------
I will give one last example for Rays book list. Here is Wheat.
I use medium term daily data, 1972 until 2025.
I really do not know what this author is talking about. These are poor quality cycle.
Do you also see how many other cycle peak is detected "within Orb" 32m-52m (2.6y-4.3) range. Orb shows many possible cycles. Many possible excuses. Give me a break.
Here is my Wheat cycle. 44.8m (within 32m-52m large Orb margin for error from Rays book list). It is better then most of his other 'recommendation' but I will still not trade with such weak 9% price correlation.
Maybe you prefer my cycle, 62% price correlation.
Maybe I shall sell some books, like Ray and Gann, instead of trading 🙂 and when I make mistake and want margin for error, I will invent term, such as Orb so you will not sue me.