Disliked{quote} Yep Hurst was way ahead of his time and produced some great work with cycles, CMA's and FLD'sIgnored
Why the square of Nine is not tradable ?
Because :
a) because you have to select first an initial starting point - on which basis ? Gann gave us no precise methodology to do this selection. Then we just infered we can use Tops or Lows . But which one is the best? Moreover Lows or Tops are not of the same value, weight, influence within Price Action. Hence the results will different.
b) Gann selected Zero as a starting point for choosing his SQ9 increment with 1 for incrementation. For Time and Price. What this increment is not 1. What if the increment differs between Price and Time ?
Very quickly the guys using the Square Nine used other increments more adapted to the Price Range they dealt with. Is there a rational methodology to choose this increment ? Not to my knowledge
c) As for the SQ9 results first Gann idea was to emphasize the numerical results located on the Horizontal Axis (0-180°), the Vertical Axis (90- 270°) or the Diagonal Axis (45, 135, 225, 315°)
Problem is you generally get a mix of those axis (or close of) when you position your Tops and or Lows.
As you can not draw some operative rule from it, you just end with the kind of chart you posted here. Looking nice and attractive but without any practical consequences.
IMHO The reason is SQ9 is based on too many parameters we do not master and generates too many results we can not discriminate to choose the operative ones with confidence.
With a SQ9 at best you show in hindsight on a chart oh this Top was on this axis and this Low on this other Axis.
1