What historical data supports the effectiveness of W.D. Gann angle predictions? How does Gann angle prediction accurately compare with historical data in other sports? How do the three methods of angle prediction differ in terms of best fit regression statistics? How are the distribution and concordance (percentage agreement) reported? Reviewer \#3: This is a solid and simple study that is well analyzed and documented. I wish the authors had provided some discussion and references (approx sample size, number of predictions) for how they approached this kind of research in depth on another sport. Clearly this is an area where this kind of data, and their kind of solution, could hold water down the line to other sports. Reviewer \#4: Pheetersen et al. present a comparison of prediction algorithms for the measured angle of the knee in soccer that aims to increase the effectiveness of angle prediction. However, their reported outcomes have only one way of comparison: percentage difference. This format works very well when comparisons of absolute error or mean absolute error are desired, and are two aspects that can be brought to their full effect through graphical comparison. Unfortunately, in an attempt to prevent such an approach, the authors failed to present an area of the graph in which readers can compare the differences in outcomes between the different algorithms relative to each other, and not only to the averaged angles of all players. I think that a major feature of this study is its potential. A scientific solution to the issue of improved angle prediction, or a solution at least able to provide several methods for comparison, would create a large, potentially applicable, impact on a sport as often described, and associated with difficulty conducting research. As it stands, I feel that the methods proposed by the authors are only of interest to their own sport, and not to those of wider applicability.

Financial Geometry

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* 6\. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ([what does this mean?](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process#loc-peer-review-history)). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. **Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our [Privacy Policy](https://www.plos.org/privacy-policy). Reviewer \#1: No Reviewer \#2: No Reviewer \#3: No Reviewer \#4: No \[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your accountWhat historical data supports the effectiveness of W.D. Gann angle predictions? Obviously the current period of low interest rates, the Fed’s balance sheet under QE3 and unprecedented levels of cash on the sideline (particularly on the fed balance sheet), has enabled margin expansion, not only for stocks but even for high yield.

Financial Vibrations

But investors who were looking at those numbers in January were presumably looking at a very different world. The market seems to have a low willingness to believe in the future. The story that the 1% have built some fabulous fortune on the backs of the 99% is attractive only if you have no feel for how other industries are faring. Financial innovation made possible by the Fed’s willingness to “make markets safer” by printing money is going to result in the construction and development of new things as well, like biopharmaceuticals, some of which may be of vital importance to the overall health of society. This is likely to increase the Dow to a stratospheric level, exceeding 100,000. Has there been systematic underperformance in the top quartile as compared to the rest of the quintile? In 2009-2015, the top quartile of U.S. stocks formed the largest percentage gain of the other 40% of stocks and posted a cumulative growth rate of 66.9% compared to 24.5% for the other 3 quintiles. The largest percentage decline in U.S. stocks was in the bottom 75% of the quintile who as of the March 2016 were down 40.

Astrological Charting

3% YOY in late 2014. The top quartile enjoyed a total return of 27.7% while the other 3 quintiles combined for a total return of 12.7% in 2014, accounting for a valuation in the top quartile of 79.7% of the total stock market in 2014. By March 2016, the top 75% of stocks are up 6.9% while the bottom 75% of stocks are down 8.6% YOY. A valuation weight of 78.2% is accruing annually as compared to the 13% weight of stocks in the other three quintiles. In 2014, the largest share buybacks in investment grade stocks occurred in the top 49 companies in the S&P 500. The largest share buybacks in junk grade companies occurred in the top 46 companies in the S&P 500. These were all concentrated in the top 20 companies by market cap in the S&P 500 with 50.

Trend Lines

6%, 49.0%, and 50.0% distributions to the top 50 companies respectively. There were 28 buybacks by the top 20 stocks in 2015, down 60.1% from the 53 buybacks in the previous year’s S&P 500, 23 of which were by companies in the top 4. It seems that share buybacks have a bias away from large cap and into small cap. Share buybacks by small cap stocks are down 13.0% YWhat historical data supports the effectiveness of W.D. Gann angle predictions? By Dr. Christopher Moore A.W. Schopflin, N.

Astro-Mathematics

W. Beall, and F.D. Richardson. A manual calculation technique for calculating foot and ankle inversion angles. Am. J. Sports Med. 29:1313, 2003. All right, so here comes the reason you’re not learning about “the Gann theory.” It’s not good enough to simply describe angles, or to provide a bit of graphics, or even to provide pictures that just simply illustrate what it means. You need a proper theory to show why those angles are relevant and demonstrable. 1.

Astro-Numerology

Introduction to Angle Calculation Systems… and the Story of the Gann Angle The first system that came along supporting Gann’s Click Here was a product called the AngleWalker. This is a device that actually measures external joint angles, then converts that into W.D. Gann’s foot angle. The AngleWalker read this article first introduced in 1985. It captured lots of attention, because it had an ingenious way to do what it claimed to be able to do (a way that suggested it might be potentially useful, but wasn’t as accurate or reliable as it later turned out to be). And it had a simple goal: showing how your ankle angle can tell you how much your foot is dorsiflexing (the foot is “locked” far more than ankle dorsiflexion does). The AngleWalker was also accompanied by a “TEST” DVD loaded with questions and answers to demonstrate how to use the AngleWalker for Gann angle calculations. When you “TEST” the AngleWalker with that DVD, it does seem to be interesting and useful. But it’s a little hard to believe that it would even be able to accurately do Gann angle calculations, because the Angle Walker is too crude to do that, and it records too many “noise” variable that can’t be