 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
|
Do you mind giving me the number for the bearish reversal that was elected?
Sorry to step in but I think since I have the numbers ... Not aware of a DJI weekly bearish but would not be surprised if there was one. However: SP500 Weekly Bearish: 284862, Date Elected: 2019-05-24, Future Date (1 period): 2019-05-31, Future close 275206, GAIN: 2.6% So you get a profit if you trade one week. I am too lazy to check the 3 week result. Perhaps a loss. olegrey, this is what I am saying, as long as the system does not say what the trading period is 1, 2, or 3 weeks, a reversal is actually worthless. Keep researching  Perhaps in a few years, you will come to the same conclusion that I have. Tip: Study data science. Is quicker. You could be right and the trading pattern of 1, 2, or 3 weeks could be completely random after the election of the reversal, but I need to see it for myself. There was some mild success from our feasibility study, so would you be willing to share your cache of thousands of reversals so that I can conduct a comprehensive study? If you are right, and the election of a reversals leads to a random 1, 2, or 3 week success, I will agree that the reversals are completely worthless, but I need to see for myself. I'm sure all the martin doubters here are intelligent and trustworthy people, but a flaw of mine is I've always needed to investigate for myself and not talking the word of people who are probably smarter than I am. I will send you my throwaway email in a private message. I will keep all the data private if you request. If you are right and martin is a complete fraud, help me see the light by allowing me to investigate his reversals and not just on the word of mouth from the people on this board. |
|
|
|
Let's try again to trade it, this time monthly reversals. Date elected: 2019-04-30, traded for one month until 2019-05-31 GDAX monthly bullish 5% loss GDX monthly bearish 3.4% loss SP 500 monthly bullish 6.6% loss TLT monthly bearish 6.6% loss /ZW Wheat futures monthly bearish 17.4% loss  This is garden variety stuff. Now where has the AI computer with wheat prices back to 1259 been hiding? https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/the-rise-in-agriculture-for-the-next-ecm/Posted Jun 17, 2019 by Martin Armstrong We have wheat prices back to 1259. Clearly, the projections it makes are all inclusive of weather and disease, for everything unfolds in a cycle.Let me make this clear. We have had a 17% wheat price rise. The computer projection, a monthly bearish reversal, calls for a decline with a gap of -5% which is clearly the opposite. So what he is writing in his blog, is pure propaganda bullshit. The article is at least a month too late. That is NOT a successful projection. Here are the month 2 results GDAX monthly bullish 0.4% gain GDX monthly bearish 22.4% loss SP 500 monthly bullish 0.1% loss TLT monthly bearish 7.4% loss ZW Wheat futures monthly bearish 23.0% loss |
|
|
|
Simplicity is better
I started shorting Brazil last week when it had the temp high. Low risk high reward. Simple to find.
No single signal in Socrates about it, actually it is still bullish from what I have heard. So far, profitable even while the start was a bit scary.
So what would have happened had I traded Socrates?
Weekly reversals elected 2019-06-07, traded for a week Friday to Friday close 2019-06-07 to 2019-06-14
$DXY weekly bearish 1% loss
EUR/USD weekly bullish 1.1% loss
GDAX weekly bullish 0.4% gain
SENSEX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
USD/CAD weekly bearish 1.0% loss
USD/CHF weekly bearish 1.2% loss
Visa weekly bullish 0.2% loss
Cotton weekly bearish 0.5% loss
Heating oil weekly bearish 0.3% loss
Natural gas weekly bearish 2.1% loss
That is a fairly good cross section of the market, of what was elected, I guess. One winner.
I would not want to extend this depressing experiment by another two weeks waiting while these trades come right while I can have a profit within a week with something better.
$DXY weekly bearish 0.4% gain EUR/USD weekly bullish 0.4% gain GDAX weekly bullish 2.4% gain SENSEX weekly bullish 1.1% loss USD/CAD weekly bearish 0.4% gain USD/CHF weekly bearish 4.2% gain Visa weekly bullish 2.0% gain Cotton weekly bearish 0.1% loss Heating oil weekly bearish 5.3% loss Natural gas weekly bearish 5.6% gain *All prices were obtained from tradingview on the closing of 7/7, 7/14, and 7/21. Let see what next week brings! Week 3 results $DXY weekly bearish 0.4% gain EUR/USD weekly bullish 0.3% gain GDAX weekly bullish 2.3% gain SENSEX weekly bullish 0.6% loss USD/CAD weekly bearish 1.3% gain USD/CHF weekly bearish 1.2% gain Visa weekly bullish 2.1% gain Cotton weekly bearish 0.9% loss Heating oil weekly bearish 6.6% loss Natural gas weekly bearish 0.7% gain |
|
|
|
I am still open to the idea that the Reversals may work. I am going to check them later. Maybe Socrates is good at technical analysis. Who knows?
However, if someone claims anything, the burden of evidence lies upon the one making the claim, not the other party. There has been a mountain of evidence on this thread that Armstrong's claims are just that- claims. There is no evidence in favor, only against. Even if some of that evidence can be waved away, there are still many things that remain and have not been adequately addressed, if at all. Cycle/array models are known to be trash. Armstrong claims to have made calls to predict large scale financial disasters in advance to the day but when he does it in real time, it is always ambiguous. Then he claims he called it. That is dishonest. He won't give a black or white answer. He should instead say he made a trade and why in real time. Not once did he ever do so. He also claims to have an office, a supercomputer, a talking AI decades before they came out these days, a huge database from coins and money he compiled himself, and so on. Evidence for those claims, please. Otherwise I could do the same thing.
I think this is worth reflecting on. There is some junk on Socrates (mostly the opinion stuff), and I simply ignore it What actually works? Can you use weekly/monthly reversals to a reasonable degree of profit? Can Arrays improve the probability of Reversal moves? Is it worth the investment for that alone? I approached Customer service as I am looking for a system to place Tail hedges on market retracements (2-3 month periods). I was asking about the October to December share market pull back and how the reversals flagged this. They showed me a daily reversal chart picking the move. Why would I be looking at daily reversals for an event that was 2-3 months in movement? I would focus on weekly and monthly triggers. From that perspective this would simply not meet my needs. As others have mentioned the reversals are hit and miss. I have found the daily levels useful at times - although only as a confirmation tool for my existing system. While I've been following the system (6mths+) the weekly reversals that have been hit all would have led to a loss-making trade based on MA/Socrates timing. I've mentioned this on several occasions but he categorically missed the last two market run-ups and was bearish immediately beforehand. Example: A weekly bearish reversal was elected at the end of May. Mkt closed around 24,800. He called for 23,700 (he actually gave 3 or 4 numbers across multiple posts - zero consistency). Over the next 3 weeks, within the timeframe that MA/Socrates says the next target should be moved towards, the market puts on 2,000ts (to current levels)... His recommended stop loss? 25,885... A 1,000 fricken point stop loss... I've been paying the pro subscription which will lapse next week and I won't be renewing. The primary reasons being, my system is able to capture the majority of the technical analysis which Socrates provides (i.e. reversals) so value add for the spend isn't there, and, MA is not able to accurately predict market movements even though his sensationalist writing attempts otherwise. The impact of that is that a users perspective is influenced incorrectly and undermines confidence. Do you mind giving me the number for the bearish reversal that was elected? |
|
|
|
@AnonymousCoder: You are right when you say: "I would need to be suicidal to use Socrates to trade currencies. Currencies do not move long enough with large enough vertical differences. Experience shows that Socrates gets whip-sawed with no end in sight." I had the Pro membership of the EUR/USD until 2 weeks ago. Do you think that it gave a clear indication that the Euro would rise against the USD? Now MA mentioned in one of his latest blogposts: "This conflict gave a boost to the Euro but the model had been calling for a rally into July after the elections which we have seen also in gold." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/central-banks/rise-in-the-euro-interesting-times-ahead/Well, Socrates must have hidden that signal very well or maybe as Gumbi would say, I lack the intelligence to understand it. According to anonymouscoder the eurusd elected a bullish reversal on 6/7/2019 |
|
|
|
A premium subscriber sent me the following data on the Dow Jones and used a spreadsheet to make it... Anyone else with a sub will be able to verify the following info. It appears that Socrates does have a slight edge in predictive value...if we use it as an inverse function.
###### Daily Reversal Analysis : Dow Jones Industrials, Trading periods: 1
Current: 2019-01-30, bullish: 2445902 close: 2501486, Next: 2019-01-31, close: 2499967, winning: false,
Current: 2019-02-05, bullish: 2467674 close: 2541152, Next: 2019-02-06, close: 2539030, winning: false,
Current: 2019-02-12, bullish: 2484208 close: 2542576, Next: 2019-02-13, close: 2554327, winning: true,
Current: 2019-02-13, bullish: 2528764 close: 2554327, Next: 2019-02-14, close: 2543939, winning: false,
Current: 2019-02-15, bullish: 2531205 close: 2588325, Next: 2019-02-19, close: 2589132, winning: true,
Current: 2019-02-22, bullish: 2556462 close: 2603181, Next: 2019-02-25, close: 2609195, winning: true,
Current: 2019-03-05, bearish: 2584647 close: 2580663, Next: 2019-03-06, close: 2567346, winning: true,
Current: 2019-03-07, bearish: 2556462 close: 2547323, Next: 2019-03-08, close: 2545024, winning: true,
Current: 2019-03-18, bullish: 2531205 close: 2591410, Next: 2019-03-19, close: 2588738, winning: false,
Current: 2019-03-21, bullish: 2557130 close: 2596251, Next: 2019-03-22, close: 2550232, winning: false,
Current: 2019-03-22, bearish: 2562130 close: 2550232, Next: 2019-03-25, close: 2551683, winning: false,
Current: 2019-03-29, bullish: 2562130 close: 2592868, Next: 2019-04-01, close: 2625842, winning: true,
Current: 2019-04-01, bullish: 2576220 close: 2625842, Next: 2019-04-02, close: 2617913, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-04, bullish: 2590626 close: 2638463, Next: 2019-04-05, close: 2642499, winning: true,
Current: 2019-04-10, bullish: 2612230 close: 2615716, Next: 2019-04-11, close: 2614305, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-12, bullish: 2612230 close: 2641230, Next: 2019-04-15, close: 2638477, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-16, bullish: 2637081 close: 2645266, Next: 2019-04-17, close: 2644954, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-18, bullish: 2612230 close: 2655954, Next: 2019-04-22, close: 2651105, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-29, bullish: 2644452 close: 2655439, Next: 2019-04-30, close: 2659291, winning: true,
Current: 2019-05-01, bearish: 2644452 close: 2643014, Next: 2019-05-02, close: 2630779, winning: true,
Current: 2019-05-02, bearish: 2639718 close: 2630779, Next: 2019-05-03, close: 2650495, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-07, bearish: 2621277 close: 2596509, Next: 2019-05-08, close: 2596733, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-09, bearish: 2589655 close: 2582836, Next: 2019-05-10, close: 2594237, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-13, bearish: 2581491 close: 2532499, Next: 2019-05-14, close: 2553205, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-23, bearish: 2551738 close: 2549047, Next: 2019-05-24, close: 2558569, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-28, bearish: 2538402 close: 2534777, Next: 2019-05-29, close: 2512641, winning: true,
Current: 2019-05-29, bearish: 2531205 close: 2512641, Next: 2019-05-30, close: 2516988, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-31, bearish: 2500900 close: 2481504, Next: 2019-06-03, close: 2481978, winning: false,
Current: 2019-06-06, bullish: 2450403 close: 2572066, Next: 2019-06-07, close: 2598394, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-07, bullish: 2556054 close: 2598394, Next: 2019-06-10, close: 2606268, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-12, bearish: 2603394 close: 2600483, Next: 2019-06-13, close: 2610677, winning: false,
Current: 2019-06-13, bullish: 2537357 close: 2610677, Next: 2019-06-14, close: 2608961, winning: false,
Current: 2019-06-18, bullish: 2588940 close: 2646554, Next: 2019-06-19, close: 2650400, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-19, bullish: 2599886 close: 2650400, Next: 2019-06-20, close: 2675317, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-20, bullish: 2598808 close: 2675317, Next: 2019-06-21, close: 2671913, winning: false,
Win count: 14
Lose count: 21
From armstrong's manuals "The election of a reversal normally indicated that the expected high or low that should unfold could take place in as short a time span as 1 to 3 units of time (i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly). Therefore, a low may develop the very next day following the election of a Daily Bearish Reversal or within the next few days. The same is true for all price activity levels. "  This is a link to an image of a spreadsheet I did for these daily reversals for 3 days after the election of the reversal. Unfortunately it is too big to put in comma delineated format as above and newbies aren't allowed to post images |
|
|
|
Fake Daily Reversals
I am just looking at a daily premium report a perplexed friend has sent me.
It contains an inconsistency that I would encourage you to watch:
THE SOCRATES PREMIUM DAILY COMMENTARY, THE CASH US$ INDEX AS OF THE CLOSE OF Wed. Jun. 19, 2019: THE CASH US$ INDEX closed today at 97115
...
The last Reversal elected in this market was a Daily Bearish on Tue. Jun. 18, 2019.
The question was: I cannot remember that reversal. Where was it?
That is easy to check. The same report has a daily reversal table. I checked the reversal tables of Mon. Jun. 17, 2019, and Tue. Jun. 18, 2019.
One would expect that the elected reversal would be in the previous report of Mon. Jun. 17, and that it would be missing in the report of Tue. Jun. 18, 2019.
No such thing. In both reports, the reversal tables are identical, so the elected reversal was not one of them, and the closest reversals are far away from the closing price.
This means if you just read the report without checking, it looks really nice in a way that Socrates is electing reversals successfully. Unfortunately, these are previously unpublished fake reversals, and their values are not known, either.
Are they manufactured to make Socrates look good?
lol fake reversal. reversals can be generated and elected on the same day. This is not something to laugh about. Then it is a Revision Signal because if it is as you say, we receive it after the market is closed, in the next report and the reversal cannot be traded for its duration because the following day, half the period is already over. Why does such a reversal disappear the moment it is created, and why is such special signal not accounted for as such in the report? Instead it is treated the same as if it was a reversal that the user could have traded as any other. The socrates user manual on pg. 13 states, "When a market is very bearish, it can generate a bearish Reversal that is higher than the peak of a reaction rally and elect it simultaneously with being generated. This takes place normally with the broader long-term Reversals. It is an indication that it is very bearish. " |
|
|
|
Simplicity is better
I started shorting Brazil last week when it had the temp high. Low risk high reward. Simple to find.
No single signal in Socrates about it, actually it is still bullish from what I have heard. So far, profitable even while the start was a bit scary.
So what would have happened had I traded Socrates?
Weekly reversals elected 2019-06-07, traded for a week Friday to Friday close 2019-06-07 to 2019-06-14
$DXY weekly bearish 1% loss
EUR/USD weekly bullish 1.1% loss
GDAX weekly bullish 0.4% gain
SENSEX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
USD/CAD weekly bearish 1.0% loss
USD/CHF weekly bearish 1.2% loss
Visa weekly bullish 0.2% loss
Cotton weekly bearish 0.5% loss
Heating oil weekly bearish 0.3% loss
Natural gas weekly bearish 2.1% loss
That is a fairly good cross section of the market, of what was elected, I guess. One winner.
I would not want to extend this depressing experiment by another two weeks waiting while these trades come right while I can have a profit within a week with something better.
$DXY weekly bearish 0.4% gain EUR/USD weekly bullish 0.4% gain GDAX weekly bullish 2.4% gain SENSEX weekly bullish 1.1% loss USD/CAD weekly bearish 0.4% gain USD/CHF weekly bearish 4.2% gain Visa weekly bullish 2.0% gain Cotton weekly bearish 0.1% loss Heating oil weekly bearish 5.3% loss Natural gas weekly bearish 5.6% gain *All prices were obtained from tradingview on the closing of 7/7, 7/14, and 7/21. Let see what next week brings! I had a 15% gain on the account. And I also posted my calls live and not only that, forecasted it ahead of time. Socrates is still not good compared to human traders. Also we need entries and exits and stop criteria all stated beforehand, as well as the vehicles to be traded. Hindsight bias cannot account for anything I am not subscribed to socrates as of now, but I assume the entry would be after the election of the reversal, and the stop would be placed around the nearest opposite reversal. This study is purely academic to explore if a instrument will produce an expected result (increase in price for an elected bullish reversal and decrease for a bearish one) after 3 weeks of the reversal election after producing an unexpected result after 1 week after the election of a reversal. If this feasibility study is successful I hope anonymous coder will provide his data for a comprehensive study of the 3 time unit theory. If the comprehensive study is successful I will purchase socrates and produce another study with all the criteria you've given |
|
|
|
Simplicity is better
I started shorting Brazil last week when it had the temp high. Low risk high reward. Simple to find.
No single signal in Socrates about it, actually it is still bullish from what I have heard. So far, profitable even while the start was a bit scary.
So what would have happened had I traded Socrates?
Weekly reversals elected 2019-06-07, traded for a week Friday to Friday close 2019-06-07 to 2019-06-14
$DXY weekly bearish 1% loss
EUR/USD weekly bullish 1.1% loss
GDAX weekly bullish 0.4% gain
SENSEX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
USD/CAD weekly bearish 1.0% loss
USD/CHF weekly bearish 1.2% loss
Visa weekly bullish 0.2% loss
Cotton weekly bearish 0.5% loss
Heating oil weekly bearish 0.3% loss
Natural gas weekly bearish 2.1% loss
That is a fairly good cross section of the market, of what was elected, I guess. One winner.
I would not want to extend this depressing experiment by another two weeks waiting while these trades come right while I can have a profit within a week with something better.
$DXY weekly bearish 0.4% gain EUR/USD weekly bullish 0.4% gain GDAX weekly bullish 2.4% gain SENSEX weekly bullish 1.1% loss USD/CAD weekly bearish 0.4% gain USD/CHF weekly bearish 4.2% gain Visa weekly bullish 2.0% gain Cotton weekly bearish 0.1% loss Heating oil weekly bearish 5.3% loss Natural gas weekly bearish 5.6% gain *All prices were obtained from tradingview on the closing of 7/7, 7/14, and 7/21. Let see what next week brings! |
|
|
|
Simplicity is better
I started shorting Brazil last week when it had the temp high. Low risk high reward. Simple to find.
No single signal in Socrates about it, actually it is still bullish from what I have heard. So far, profitable even while the start was a bit scary.
So what would have happened had I traded Socrates?
Weekly reversals elected 2019-06-07, traded for a week Friday to Friday close 2019-06-07 to 2019-06-14
$DXY weekly bearish 1% loss
EUR/USD weekly bullish 1.1% loss
GDAX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
SENSEX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
USD/CAD weekly bearish 1.0% loss
USD/CHF weekly bearish 1.2% loss
Visa weekly bullish 0.2% loss
Cotton weekly bearish 0.5% loss
Heating oil weekly bearish 0.3% loss
Natural gas weekly bearish 2.1% loss
That is a fairly good cross section of the market, of what was elected, I guess. No winner.
I would not want to extend this depressing experiment by another two weeks waiting while these trades come right while I can have a profit within a week with something better.
All my percentage line up with yours except for the weekly bullish GDAX. The GDAX elected the bullish reversal at 12045.38 and ended the first week at 12096.4 for a gain of 0.4% instead of a loss of 0.4% |
|
|
|
Let's try again to trade it, this time monthly reversals. Date elected: 2019-04-30, traded for one month until 2019-05-31 GDAX monthly bullish 5% loss GDX monthly bearish 3.4% loss SP 500 monthly bullish 6.6% loss TLT monthly bearish 6.6% loss /ZW Wheat futures monthly bearish 17.4% loss This is garden variety stuff. Now where has the AI computer with wheat prices back to 1259 been hiding? https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/the-rise-in-agriculture-for-the-next-ecm/Posted Jun 17, 2019 by Martin Armstrong We have wheat prices back to 1259. Clearly, the projections it makes are all inclusive of weather and disease, for everything unfolds in a cycle.Let me make this clear. We have had a 17% wheat price rise. The computer projection, a monthly bearish reversal, calls for a decline with a gap of -5% which is clearly the opposite. So what he is writing in his blog, is pure propaganda bullshit. The article is at least a month too late. That is NOT a successful projection. What does GDAX stand for, German DAX? The crypto trading market? |
|
|
|
Let's try again to trade it, this time monthly reversals. Date elected: 2019-04-30, traded for one month until 2019-05-31 GDAX monthly bullish 5% loss GDX monthly bearish 3.4% loss SP 500 monthly bullish 6.6% loss TLT monthly bearish 6.6% loss /ZW Wheat futures monthly bearish 17.4% loss This is garden variety stuff. Now where has the AI computer with wheat prices back to 1259 been hiding? https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/the-rise-in-agriculture-for-the-next-ecm/Posted Jun 17, 2019 by Martin Armstrong We have wheat prices back to 1259. Clearly, the projections it makes are all inclusive of weather and disease, for everything unfolds in a cycle.Let me make this clear. We have had a 17% wheat price rise. The computer projection, a monthly bearish reversal, calls for a decline with a gap of -5% which is clearly the opposite. So what he is writing in his blog, is pure propaganda bullshit. The article is at least a month too late. That is NOT a successful projection. Perfect! These numbers and the weekly reversals last page will work great for a feasibility study. The hypothesis being: If a time frame is set at three units from an elected reversal, then a market that failed to get an expected result in the first time unit will get an expected result at 3 time units. An expect result being a higher price than a bullish reversal and a lower price for a bearish reversal I assume the 1 percent rule and no superposition event don't apply to these reversals. As you can see we are not applying arrays or the GMW at all, so no worries abut that. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of these reversals. If you would like to add anymore elected reversals that didn't produce an expect result within the first time unit, feel free to add them! |
|
|
|
...
I haven't never been subscribed to socrates. I have just been very interested in his work and have looked around for some proof on his system. Again did you really buy over 10+ premium subscriptions just to collect reversals, and then not share any of that valuable data?
The reversals are in the summary reports, you don't need the premium subscription for those. The reversals have been available before the premium version came out. Therefore, we can go back in time further. I was under the impression that the initial investor version of socrates had no reversals. I also was under the impression that the summary reports were just high level information of market behavior with detailed reports having select reversals included, and premium analysis had all the reversals for the select market. Like I said, I haven't subscribed to socrates so forgive me if I'm wrong |
|
|
|
...
Obviously socrates should provide historical data, but that isn't happening.
...
Unsubscribe from Socrates and email them that you would be interested after they provide the historical data. It is peanuts for them. The difficulty is to generate the reports and the web GUI. Dumping the data of a system that has been around for 30 years into a text file is not worth even talking about. If they don't do it, then it is proof they have something to hide. I haven't never been subscribed to socrates. I have just been very interested in his work and have looked around for some proof on his system. Again did you really buy over 10+ premium subscriptions just to collect reversals, and then not share any of that valuable data? |
|
|
|
...
I appreciate what you are doing! I understand this undertaking is a big ordeal that will take a lot of time. My only ask i's that you make it publicly available so that we can analyze your findings for ourselves. I mean what's the point of posting findings if we can't go through the data and come to the same conclusions.
I make my claims based on logic such as saying that the Socrates system does not tell the user what to trade, for how long to trade it, with what stop loss and so on. So even if we had all the data, we would still not be able to test it because there are no objective test criteria. If nobody has historical data because the Socrates system does not provide it, then the Socrates system is flawed because it hides the historical data from us. The burden of proof is on the Socrates system not on us. If I do not provide the data now then that does not prove that the Socrates system is correct. If I provide the data then anybody could say my data is flawed because it cannot be corroborated because Socrates does not provide it. I could have just made it up. And as I said, it provides an attack surface where Armstrong proxies can come forward with their well known beat around the bush forecast array method where they will perhaps say that this and that weekly reversal should have been traded only for a day because there was a strong turning point on Monday. Obviously socrates should provide historical data, but that isn't happening. I just want to test what Martin says that the reversal system will produce the expected result within 3 time units, nothing to do with the forcast arrays. Also, did you buy 10+ premium subscriptions for the purpose of collecting reversals? If I could buy this many subscriptions I would, but I don't have the funds. But you have this great dataset that is going to waste because you are afraid of some criticisms from "Armstrong proxies". It sounds like you are trying to take a scientific approach with your experiment. Well this is how science works, you provide your results WITH underlying data so others can scutinize and design further experiments based on your results and data. I'm trying to do this because I see a flaw in your methodology. The methodology I am proposing fixes your flaw, and can bring further understanding to this whole reversal system |
|
|
|
In regards to my previous post, I'd also like to add Expected Profit and Potential Loss. Expected Profit would be the distance between the current price at close of the election of a Reversal and the next Reversal. Potential Loss would be a stop behind the Reversal after election. This is more subjective, as stops are different and Socrates/Armstrong does not have a specific system for that. Also the R:R for each trade can be added beforehand and the ones better than 1:1 might hypothetically be traded.
It's just that I don't remember bad things about the Reversal performance in themselves, which is the only point of doubt. Even the Euro short had a Monthly Bearish which it bounced off from perfectly. The long side couldn't have been traded but it was the correct point to close shorts. I want to be as objective about this as possible using purely Socrates, so there won't be things like the 1% rule, arrays, trading against Reversals, and so on. Only election based trade performance will be analyzed. The calls will only be based on the ones in the Private Blog. I noticed that Socrates kept changing some of the Weekly Reversals in the textual analysis and so I wasn't sure which was the 'real' or 'fixed' one. It may be that it can do technical analysis well even if everything else is trash. We'll see.
I appreciate what you are doing! I understand this undertaking is a big ordeal that will take a lot of time. My only ask is that you make it publicly available so that we can analyze your findings for ourselves. I mean what's the point of posting findings if we can't go through the data and come to the same conclusions. |
|
|
|
Simplicity is better
I started shorting Brazil last week when it had the temp high. Low risk high reward. Simple to find.
No single signal in Socrates about it, actually it is still bullish from what I have heard. So far, profitable even while the start was a bit scary.
So what would have happened had I traded Socrates?
Weekly reversals elected 2019-06-07, traded for a week Friday to Friday close 2019-06-07 to 2019-06-14
$DXY weekly bearish 1% loss
EUR/USD weekly bullish 1.1% loss
GDAX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
SENSEX weekly bullish 0.4% loss
USD/CAD weekly bearish 1.0% loss
USD/CHF weekly bearish 1.2% loss
Visa weekly bullish 0.2% loss
Cotton weekly bearish 0.5% loss
Heating oil weekly bearish 0.3% loss
Natural gas weekly bearish 2.1% loss
That is a fairly good cross section of the market, of what was elected, I guess. No winner.
I would not want to extend this depressing experiment by another two weeks waiting while these trades come right while I can have a profit within a week with something better.
It's great that you can make a profit from your trades, but this forum is about the merits of the Socrates system. From your posts I can see that you are claiming martin is a fraud from your experiment, but as I said before, in his manual he said, "The election of a reversal normally indicated that the expected high or low that should unfold could take place in as short a time span as 1 to 3 units of time (i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly). Therefore, a low may develop the very next day following the election of a Daily Bearish Reversal or within the next few days. The same is true for all price activity levels." As you can see he said that an elected reversal may not come to fruition until 3 units of time after the election. Your experiment proves nothing unless you go by his timeframe of 3 time units. Your collection of data is truly is impressive, if it is what you say it is. But your methodology is faulty and therefore proves nothing. For example, lets say a weekly bullish reversal is elected but the expected raise in price doesn't come until 3 weeks after the reversal. Your experiment would label that as a failed reversal even though it was successful by martin's method. If you truly want to prove he is a fraud, make the data available so that we can put the final nail in his coffin. If the experiment fails by the timeframe of 3 units, then he has no wiggle room, we will have successfully and conclusively shown that he is a fraud by his own methodology. I assume you want to "save" people from martin. If we can prove his 3 units of time is faulty I will be completely convinced he is a fraud, but until we can successfully prove it, I won't be satisfied taking your word for it. Like I said, you won't have to put in any additional work, I will do all the input for the additional 2 time units. Also like I said, if you don't want to make it publicly available, enable private messages from newbies and I'll message you my email. If you don't want to private message, I'll post a throwaway email on this message board. I just want to fully prove he is a fraud, but I need your help. You have the data, I have the methodology. |
|
|
|
...
Therefore your study only allowed for 1/3 of the time needed to fully test the reversals. Honestly a 50% success rate in 1/3 of the time allotted is pretty good. Would you be willing to share your data, hopefully in excel or google sheets format, so that we can fully get the bottom of these reversals? I'd be willing to input the next two time units when I get the time.
Also how were you able to collect all the reversals for your study? Did you get them from a premium subscription or from the private blog? I ask because I want to be sure they came from a legitimate source to add legitimacy to this thorough study. Thank you
The reversals I got from the two highest subscription levels not the blog. Still the collection of that many reversals is a very labor intensive process as you can imagine. You are correct that my methodology has a problem because I used a fixed time window for trading them. As I pointed out earlier, according to a recent Armstrong article, a weekly reversal may need to be traded between only a single day and 3 weeks. When you read this article https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/, and https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/trading-against-the-reversals/, and you acknowledge that the interpretation of forecast arrays is a subjective process, where you may need to even trade against them, and you know how unreliable the forecast arrays are, then you understand what the ambiguity is that I am talking about. Every trickster or con man with a ponzi scheme has some kind of trick to confuse you and this is the trick - where the trading of reversals is so ambiguous that there are literally hundreds of ways to trade them. This is the back door for him to be always right in hindsight. There is no way to methodically test them using this ambiguity. If we do not understand that and if we try to follow this ambiguity then we are idiots by spending an infinite amount of energy to prove or disprove his system. In other words, the system is extremely limited, I would say not a computer system but manual because it does not say for how long to trade a reversal. I have a choice between a) where because of this endless ambiguity, the system is not a tradeable system or b) I draw a line in the sand and measure success by trading it exactly for a single time period (which is what I did). In fact I think a) AND b) so I reject the system as a whole as a scam, and do the test based on b) only for demonstration purposes. Otherwise, if you read all my posts, I have thoroughly discredited the system - there is not much I can add. In other words, there is no exact method to test an ambiguous system. Ambiguous is kind of the opposite of exact so how is that possible? You ask me to share the data. Perhaps at some future point. But by doing so, I would play into Armstrong's hands where he can effectively attack just a few reversals and make them look right in hindsight and start an endless discussion, thereby forcing me to spend even more energy on this rubbish. I prefer to point out the flaws in the system such as ambiguity and deception, and the fact that it does not provide historical data. Let's ask customer support to provide that historical data on a daily basis. Like other services do. That would be the correct way to handle this. I am not saying your methodology is wrong because it uses a fix timeframe window. I am saying that it is wrong because your window is too small. You need to increase the timeframe to 3 time units (days, weeks, months, etc). As I said, I am willing to do this I just need your initial data. I believe that you are very close to an answer about the legitimacy of the reversals, you just had the timeframe too short. I am willing to do all the work, you won't have to spend any more energy on proving or disproving the system. I am sending you my email in a private message so that the data won't be public Your settings won't allow a private message from newbies. Please change this setting so you can receive my private message with my email |
|
|
|
Interesting that on the same day of my post where I covered this relativity MA answers a user question https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/ which clearly shows that Weekly Reversals are not valid standalone, but subject to the human interpretation of both weekly and daily forecast arrays which may negate the Reversal to mean the opposite or limit the validity to one day only. This in addition to the 1% rule and the not so rare superposition event. This reduces the confidence with what they can be traded to zero. I am just considering what seems to be the consensus in this group that the forecast arrays are much too ambiguous to be considered reliable. Here it is set in stone that they are strictly part of the Reversal system. Here is the critical question to answer: This is a computer based system, right? Using AI and so forth? Bullshit. Someone please tell me that a computer cannot figure out these conditions and come up with a clear answer that the poor user has to find by navigating this maze? Give me a break! This is disgusting. Only people who want to be deceived, want to be lied to will believe this. Either MA does not know how to write computer programs, or he knows it is not possible and keeps beating around the bush. I said it before. The more time you try learning this stuff, the more time you spend losing money. The result is the same that his system does not work. In other words, the forecast arrays will mostly not agree with the Reversals. So when the Reversals are good and you trade them, then you ignore the forecast arrays, fine. If you however take them seriously, then you do not trade and lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if the Reversals are bad, then it is your fault if you ignored the forecast arrays. Pick your poison. What was the timeframe you used to determine if the daily/weekly/monthly elected reversal was a failure? Very simple. For daily I compared the next day close with the current day close. For weekly I compared the next week end close with the elected end of week close. For monthly I applied one month. If the 1% rule applied, and / or if there was a superposition event, then I assumed a trade in the opposite direction. This would normally give more favorable results. I know that this could be negated by Armstrong's instructions that I wrote about in my previous post, but there is no way to do this in a systematic fashion - it is chaos. I actually aborted weekly reversal trades, according to Armstrong rules - chaos. This effectively converts weekly reversals into daily reversals so to speak, defeating their purpose. Result? Sharply reduced profits / losses. It is more like not trading, losing opportunities. So I decided to stick with a simple reproducible scheme which is a kind of an average, the most objective way from my perspective. Otherwise it cannot be systematic. Last not least, new reversals are elected on a weekly cycle every week, so one has to keep in step with that. That is perhaps the strongest argument for trading them like that. Same for daily. New reversals are elected every day, often in opposite directions. So I cannot evaluate them for longer than their respective period. I have accumulated a very large number of reversals over the years, and I have to say that volume is really necessary for this evaluation. For example, there are weeks where the stock market rallies and Socrates elects bullish reversals. If it is lucky, then there are a number of good reversals this week because a large number of symbols that were available to me are correlated with the stock market, perhaps even Crude Oil, making this a good week. Then the next week it is the opposite, all bad. I found that the monthly reversals are just as terrible as the daily ones. The biggest problem is that with a number of symbols to choose from, Socrates will not tell you which one to trade. MA and his staff always cherry pick the successful recent ones after the fact and say: See, what an amazing system. Nobody talks about the other 50% - the bad signals and trades. Socrates should provide historical dumps of past elected reversals so everybody can assess past performance like I did. Honestly, doing this is a full time job. Other financial services keep a record of good and bad trades, such as etfguide.com. Not doing this is dishonest. If other manual services can provide this, an automated system like Socrates can provide it with much less effort. There is really no excuse. I think I see a problem with your methodology. If you refer to page 28 of the model and methodology on armstrong's blog you will see that, "The election of a reversal normally indicated that the expected high or low that should unfold could take place in as short a time span as 1 to 3 units of time (i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly). Therefore, a low may develop the very next day following the election of a Daily Bearish Reversal or within the next few days. The same is true for all price activity levels." https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ModelsMethodologies.SecondEdition.pdfTherefore your study only allowed for 1/3 of the time needed to fully test the reversals. Honestly a 50% success rate in 1/3 of the time allotted is pretty good. Would you be willing to share your data, hopefully in excel or google sheets format, so that we can fully get the bottom of these reversals? I'd be willing to input the next two time units when I get the time. Also how were you able to collect all the reversals for your study? Did you get them from a premium subscription or from the private blog? I ask because I want to be sure they came from a legitimate source to add legitimacy to this thorough study. Thank you |
|
|
|
@rosousa ECM Slack Groups ? I would be interested to join.
+1 2 of them are private groups but ECM-Traders slack group I can send invitations to anyone who wants to join, just send me your email in a pvt message and you will receive a Slack invitation to join ECM-Traders. Rosousa, pvt message sent |
|
|
|
|
