Bitcoin Forum
November 13, 2019, 02:32:40 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 [224] 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 ... 327 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 617424 times)
spongegar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 100



View Profile
September 18, 2018, 04:07:04 AM
 #4461

I don't know, it's too complicated for me to understand and besides my understanding of economics in itself is still flimsy. Butni guess we can say that things has a way of turning around and around for us and no one will be the wiser. I just hope we try to understand what is going on in the past fornus to move away from a cyclic nature of things.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬ |  𝗘𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘂𝗺 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻  ⎮ ▬▬  ▬▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬  ▬
▬▬ ▬▬ ▬▬ Hard fork Ethereum  ▬▬▬ ▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬  11.1.19  ▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬  ANN  ▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬ All Ethereum holders will receive 3 ETCV ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▬▬▬▬▬▬  Telegram  ▬▬▬▬▬  Twitter  ▬▬▬▬  White Paper  ▬▬▬ ▬▬
1573612360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573612360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573612360
Reply with quote  #2

1573612360
Report to moderator
1573612360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573612360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573612360
Reply with quote  #2

1573612360
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
1573612360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573612360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573612360
Reply with quote  #2

1573612360
Report to moderator
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 19, 2018, 08:49:46 PM
 #4462

The Dow has broken out to the upside but it is not yet through technical resistance. Today, a closing below 26406 is not a Reversal, but it will warn that we can still see a temp high with a Direction Change due tomorrow on the daily level. A Friday closing also below last week's high of 26211 will also warn that we are still really just consolidating. The next real target will be the week of 10/01 so exceeding this week's high next week should signal a further rally to Test the January high.
As stated previously, exceeding this year's high next year will most likely signal a Vertical Market into 2020/2021. The politics will play a role, but keep in mind that everything everywhere is just going nuts - not just Trump. Capital will move according to country risk. The volatility is likely to appear for December going into year-end. All we can do is follow the computer and the Reversals. That is the only way to deal with this political-economic uncertainty on absolutely every front globally. We also have a leadership election in Japan tomorrow.

Does anyone know what closing right on that number implies for tomorrow?
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
September 20, 2018, 01:56:14 AM
 #4463

The Dow has broken out to the upside but it is not yet through technical resistance. Today, a closing below 26406 is not a Reversal, but it will warn that we can still see a temp high with a Direction Change due tomorrow on the daily level. A Friday closing also below last week's high of 26211 will also warn that we are still really just consolidating. The next real target will be the week of 10/01 so exceeding this week's high next week should signal a further rally to Test the January high.
As stated previously, exceeding this year's high next year will most likely signal a Vertical Market into 2020/2021. The politics will play a role, but keep in mind that everything everywhere is just going nuts - not just Trump. Capital will move according to country risk. The volatility is likely to appear for December going into year-end. All we can do is follow the computer and the Reversals. That is the only way to deal with this political-economic uncertainty on absolutely every front globally. We also have a leadership election in Japan tomorrow.

Does anyone know what closing right on that number implies for tomorrow?
in other words make a new high and then come down to 2020 and 2021 got it.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 20, 2018, 04:26:30 PM
 #4464

The Dow Jones continued to make new highs after exceed our first level of technical resistance. So far the market has reach 26654.19 this morning. We will have 26420.82 as technical support for the closing. Next week is a Directional Change showing up in all three markets. The week of Oct 1st is the strongest target in the Nasdaq whereas we have the week of 10/15 as the strongest targets in the Dow & S&P500. The Dow has been leading again so this is reflecting the international influence. The S&P500 is making new highs reflecting how the perpetual bears keep having to buy shorts back. The Nasdaq is lagging and that shows the domestic investors are still not on board yet.
This market is still in a consolidation pattern. The good news is the Dow has now exceeded the January high. Exceeding the September high in October points to higher highs going into year end. Our next targets will be November and January. Again, if we close above the 2017 high of 24876.07, we stand a reasonable shot at creating a Vertical Market. We will be going over the key points and markets at the WEC.
For now, only a closing below the 26030 level will signal a correction. This will begin to move higher with the market. The Reversals are the ONLY game in town. Once we took out the Weekly Bullish back at 25800, the rally was confirmed. Just keep the reversals as the key. They will forecast things far better than any person can ever hope.


I have some long positions, but because of the directional change alignment, I plan to close some positions this week. I may open some short positions next week, but I do not like shorting uptrends. I intend on opening more long positions at some point next week.
wingsthegreat21
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 87
Merit: 1


View Profile
September 22, 2018, 01:33:44 PM
 #4465

Of course there will be a collapse. The FED will make it happen and then they will pocket the money and laugh all the way to their fed reserve banks you ever notice? They are never hurt by any problem in the economy ever.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
September 23, 2018, 03:26:52 AM
 #4466

Of course there will be a collapse. The FED will make it happen and then they will pocket the money and laugh all the way to their fed reserve banks you ever notice? They are never hurt by any problem in the economy ever.
never say never
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 24, 2018, 12:14:38 AM
 #4467


The way the cycles were set up, an August high would have been followed by a low in November. Once we exceeded the August high, then we are clearly still in this cycle inversion and that means we are still consolidating. Despite making a new high, we are still below technical resistance so we are consolidating and not in a runaway market just yet.

On August 31, we warned that the market had to close below the Weekly Bullish at 25800. Doing so would have meant a decline. We elected that set of Weekly Bullish in the Dow. However, many noticed that the S&P500 had elected its comparable Weekly Bullish the week before 08/20. The one lagging was the NASDAQ.

Next week we have a Directional Change. That can be a blast off if we open ABOVE this past week's high. But it can also turn back down and retest support since the NASDAQ has not yet joined the party.

There are a lot of analysts starting to copy what we have been saying. That should be expected. Nevertheless, all we can do is follow the computer at this stage. The numbers are the key. The market speaks if we care to listen.

At this stage now, the support lies at 25800. As long as that area holds on a weekly closing basis, then the consolidation will remain in play. The key support lies now at 24965 and only a weekly closing below that will confirm a correction pattern.

In the S&P500, the corresponding numbers are 2850 and 2794.

Exceeding the August high may prove to be a game changer. There was a shot that the market would back off into 2020 and then rally thereafter into 2032. The other pattern is exceeding this year's high next year points to a serious run up into 2020. Then we can see the decline in the dollar from there and the inflationary boom off into 2024.

So hold tight. We are clearly in the staging process right now.


Thinking of buying the dip on some blue chips this week- healthcare and industrials mainly and shifting out of tech, assuming that the futures gap down holds on Monday morning and goes lower. I did end up opening a small short position on Friday, which I plan on closing this week.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 25, 2018, 04:41:59 PM
 #4468

I was a long time believer (10+ years) in Martin Armstrong, until recently.  Here is some public news related to his jailing:

https://www.hedgeweek.com/2009/08/25/martin-armstrong-and-two-firms-pay-usd27m-anti-fraud-action

---
In July 2004 the CFTC entered an order against Harold Ludwig, former co-director, with Martin Armstrong, of PGM, which required Ludwig to pay USD4.9m in restitution and a USD2m civil monetary penalty for his role in fraudulently allocating profitable trades to benefit himself rather than the Princeton customers. Also in July 2004, the CFTC entered an order against William Rogers and Maria Toczylowski, the former president and vice president, respectively, of the commodity futures division of Republic New York Securities. The order required them to pay USD6m and USD400,000 in restitution and USD2m and USD240,000 in civil monetary penalties, respectively, for their roles in executing net asset value letters that intentionally misrepresented the true values of the Princeton accounts and for assisting in fraudulently allocating trades to the detriment of Princeton customers.
----
The link didn't mention much about Martin Armstrong, but the co-director Harold Ludwig allocated profitable trades to himself.  I find it extremely hard to believe that Armstrong can claim innocence from this.  Everything he writes on his website related to his jailing, he claims innocence.  But that's what everyone would do.

bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 25, 2018, 07:31:58 PM
 #4469

I was a long time believer (10+ years) in Martin Armstrong, until recently.  Here is some public news related to his jailing:

https://www.hedgeweek.com/2009/08/25/martin-armstrong-and-two-firms-pay-usd27m-anti-fraud-action

---
In July 2004 the CFTC entered an order against Harold Ludwig, former co-director, with Martin Armstrong, of PGM, which required Ludwig to pay USD4.9m in restitution and a USD2m civil monetary penalty for his role in fraudulently allocating profitable trades to benefit himself rather than the Princeton customers. Also in July 2004, the CFTC entered an order against William Rogers and Maria Toczylowski, the former president and vice president, respectively, of the commodity futures division of Republic New York Securities. The order required them to pay USD6m and USD400,000 in restitution and USD2m and USD240,000 in civil monetary penalties, respectively, for their roles in executing net asset value letters that intentionally misrepresented the true values of the Princeton accounts and for assisting in fraudulently allocating trades to the detriment of Princeton customers.
----
The link didn't mention much about Martin Armstrong, but the co-director Harold Ludwig allocated profitable trades to himself.  I find it extremely hard to believe that Armstrong can claim innocence from this.  Everything he writes on his website related to his jailing, he claims innocence.  But that's what everyone would do.



I don't know how much of what he was accused of actually happened. Armstrong has posted excerpts of transcripts as evidence (such as the courts requiring him to read from a pre-written piece, other traders who lost money in the firm without reporting losses and were actually convicted separately and this was reported in several other places, not just Armstrong's site, etc.) I'm not going to pick sides, I am only using the computer to make trades. As you've followed Armstrong for over a decade, how does his computer fare? Have you made a lot from it? I haven't been following too long, but the volatility call for the first half of the year in the US stock market with a trend the second half, bearishness on EM, gold, and Euro, have really been incredible.     
       
And on that note, some new private blog postings are up. Armstrong says that a close above 26620 in the Dow may signal a rally into November. Wednesday/Thursday is a turning point, then the next one is Monday, Oct. 1. (We've been going lower, so this can mean we make a low intraday or closing, then go up from there into a Monday high, perhaps.) Then there's a Panic Cycle the day after, a Tuesday. Based off my own technical analysis, we are close to some support levels, which can be hit in a day or two.
minhkhoa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 267
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 25, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
 #4470

I've met him, and hung out with him on several occasions.He is rude, arrogant, and basically about the biggest jerk in public you could possibly imagine. Every person in Austin that has had the misfortune to run into him in public will say the same thing.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 25, 2018, 09:28:02 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1), Wekkel (1)
 #4471

I read EVERY single public articles that he has ever written and available on the internet from year 2000 to about year 2015.  ANd I truly meant EVERY articles.  Never missed a single post.

Here is the biggest issue that I have about "his computer" or "AI" or whatever that exists.  He plays the numbers & dates to fit for his benefits.  Do you know the length of his ECM model?  He often uses 8.6 years.  In the articles from those 16 years, he used 8.6, 8.61, 8.615, 8.6153846615, and 8.6xxxxxx (depending on the day and his mood).

You would think that he is quite "scientific" as he often attacks the stupid economists without any scientific disciplines.  But when I read
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/

I immediately realized that he was making up numbers.

Why?  Because IN HIS OWN WORDS, the date should have been Oct 7th, 2015, instead of Oct 1st, 2015.  Yet, he claimed that ECM is accurate down to the day SO MANY times.  Actually, I recalled that he claimed the bombing started on Sep 30th/Oct 1st, which is the precise day of ECM, but the current content at the above link doesn't show that anymore.  Maybe he has gone back and changed it.

Here is his older article (from the below 3 links) indicating 10/7/15 is the date, and in this article, he claimed
"Both the 1994.25 and the 1998.55 turning points also produced clear events precisely to the day. The probability of coincidence of so many targets being that precise to the day was well into the billions."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170419192904/http://www.nowandfutures.com/buscycle.htm

If someone tells you that the cycle model is accurate down to the day, that means that the cycle length must be accurate to within 1/365 = 0.3%.  His 8.6 year for ECM must be accurate to be within 0.3%.  Here is THE NUMBER that he posted numerous times at the headline section on his own website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/

And the number is 8.6153846615

He has self-certified that the last ECM date was Oct 1st, 2015 on his sites many times.  And accurate past ECM dates that I can find are Feb 27th, 2007, and July 20th, 1998 are accurate past ECM dates down to the day.

Based on his calculation method shown here:
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/how-to-convert-ecm-dates/

I also realized one fatal mistake that he is making.  8.6 x 10 will give you 86, which means that after 10 ECM cycles.  Any decimal parts will be the same, which means that the dates in the year WILL be the same too.  If you keep adding 8.6 to 2015.75, you will only have the following decimal parts:

Decimal part in year (dates calculated using his published method above, for 365/366 days in a year):
0.15:  Feb 24th (54.75 days)  Feb 24th (54.90 days)
0.75:  Oct 1st (273.75 days)  Oct 1st (274.50 days)
0.35:  May 8th (127.75 days)  May 7th (128.10 days)
0.95:  Dec 13th (346.75 days)  Dec 13th (347.70 days)
0.55:  Jul 20th (200.75 days)  Jul 19th (201.30 days)

Well, apparent, that's not enough dates for him to fudge.  So now he adds a PI date also, which is 314 days from the ECM, besides all of the 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 6/8, 7/8 dates.

Guess what.  The world is so big, that you can always find a headline EVERYDAY to fit your dates.

And then he starts to use PI, and 10PI as 31.4, or 100*PI as 314, and then he has 224=8.6*26 for political cycle, and since his 8.6 is not exact, sometimes (in the last 16 years) this 224 is 223 years.  Sometimes it's 224.  Sometimes, it comes with a decimal part.  Etc.

And then he not only has 8.6 years, but also 8.6 months, and 8.6 weeks, and 8.6 days.  ANYONE who understands the mathematical definition of fractal will know that the FRACTAL is only based on 1 single RATIO.  You CANNOT keep multiply numbers to year, month, weeks, or days.  Who says 7 days or 7 is a magical number in nature??

Given the power with all of the above numbers, and the magic of multiplying everything by day/week/monh/year, or 10/100/1000/1 million/etc., he can make ANY days to fit.

If I do science like that, I can fill the entire number line with my dates.


bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 25, 2018, 11:06:00 PM
 #4472

I read EVERY single public articles that he has ever written and available on the internet from year 2000 to about year 2015.  ANd I truly meant EVERY articles.  Never missed a single post.

Here is the biggest issue that I have about "his computer" or "AI" or whatever that exists.  He plays the numbers & dates to fit for his benefits.  Do you know the length of his ECM model?  He often uses 8.6 years.  In the articles from those 16 years, he used 8.6, 8.61, 8.615, 8.6153846615, and 8.6xxxxxx (depending on the day and his mood).

You would think that he is quite "scientific" as he often attacks the stupid economists without any scientific disciplines.  But when I read
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/

I immediately realized that he was making up numbers.

Why?  Because IN HIS OWN WORDS, the date should have been Oct 7th, 2015, instead of Oct 1st, 2015.  Yet, he claimed that ECM is accurate down to the day SO MANY times.  Actually, I recalled that he claimed the bombing started on Sep 30th/Oct 1st, which is the precise day of ECM, but the current content at the above link doesn't show that anymore.  Maybe he has gone back and changed it.

Here is his older article (from the below 3 links) indicating 10/7/15 is the date, and in this article, he claimed
"Both the 1994.25 and the 1998.55 turning points also produced clear events precisely to the day. The probability of coincidence of so many targets being that precise to the day was well into the billions."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170419192904/http://www.nowandfutures.com/buscycle.htm

If someone tells you that the cycle model is accurate down to the day, that means that the cycle length must be accurate to within 1/365 = 0.3%.  His 8.6 year for ECM must be accurate to be within 0.3%.  Here is THE NUMBER that he posted numerous times at the headline section on his own website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/

And the number is 8.6153846615

He has self-certified that the last ECM date was Oct 1st, 2015 on his sites many times.  And accurate past ECM dates that I can find are Feb 27th, 2007, and July 20th, 1998 are accurate past ECM dates down to the day.

Based on his calculation method shown here:
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/how-to-convert-ecm-dates/

I also realized one fatal mistake that he is making.  8.6 x 10 will give you 86, which means that after 10 ECM cycles.  Any decimal parts will be the same, which means that the dates in the year WILL be the same too.  If you keep adding 8.6 to 2015.75, you will only have the following decimal parts:

Decimal part in year (dates calculated using his published method above, for 365/366 days in a year):
0.15:  Feb 24th (54.75 days)  Feb 24th (54.90 days)
0.75:  Oct 1st (273.75 days)  Oct 1st (274.50 days)
0.35:  May 8th (127.75 days)  May 7th (128.10 days)
0.95:  Dec 13th (346.75 days)  Dec 13th (347.70 days)
0.55:  Jul 20th (200.75 days)  Jul 19th (201.30 days)

Well, apparent, that's not enough dates for him to fudge.  So now he adds a PI date also, which is 314 days from the ECM, besides all of the 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 6/8, 7/8 dates.

Guess what.  The world is so big, that you can always find a headline EVERYDAY to fit your dates.

And then he starts to use PI, and 10PI as 31.4, or 100*PI as 314, and then he has 224=8.6*26 for political cycle, and since his 8.6 is not exact, sometimes (in the last 16 years) this 224 is 223 years.  Sometimes it's 224.  Sometimes, it comes with a decimal part.  Etc.

And then he not only has 8.6 years, but also 8.6 months, and 8.6 weeks, and 8.6 days.  ANYONE who understands the mathematical definition of fractal will know that the FRACTAL is only based on 1 single RATIO.  You CANNOT keep multiply numbers to year, month, weeks, or days.  Who says 7 days or 7 is a magical number in nature??

Given the power with all of the above numbers, and the magic of multiplying everything by day/week/monh/year, or 10/100/1000/1 million/etc., he can make ANY days to fit.

If I do science like that, I can fill the entire number line with my dates.




I agree with you 101% when it comes to the ECM. However, the ECM is not a trading tool as Armstrong himself says. I was referring to the Arrays and Reversals. I've been a subscriber where he posts his calls (eg a closing beneath a number by a certain time will mean we should see more downside the next day or whatever) and he is right most of the time, which is impressive when he calls for a decline or rise to happen for a specific number of days. I have some of the old array pictures where highs and lows are supposed to form. It did perfectly for gold and the euro on the weekly level for its entirety which was several months. However, it was not perfect and forecasted high volatility for a particular week when it ended up an inside week. 8/20 was also a turning point in the Dow where a high was supposed to be made but the market just ignored that and kept going up. He was talking about cycle inversion and alignment later and still now so those turning points may keep making highs. Had you tried trading with those? I do recall seeing some old posts where he posted calls and forecasts on markets in the public blog but I don't know much about how consistent they went, as I didn't look through them chronologically. There is also the day trading method that someone used, records are being kept online. It looks to do well some days buy others are just indeciferable.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 03:08:13 AM
 #4473

I read EVERY single public articles that he has ever written and available on the internet from year 2000 to about year 2015.  ANd I truly meant EVERY articles.  Never missed a single post.

Here is the biggest issue that I have about "his computer" or "AI" or whatever that exists.  He plays the numbers & dates to fit for his benefits.  Do you know the length of his ECM model?  He often uses 8.6 years.  In the articles from those 16 years, he used 8.6, 8.61, 8.615, 8.6153846615, and 8.6xxxxxx (depending on the day and his mood).

You would think that he is quite "scientific" as he often attacks the stupid economists without any scientific disciplines.  But when I read
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/

I immediately realized that he was making up numbers.

Why?  Because IN HIS OWN WORDS, the date should have been Oct 7th, 2015, instead of Oct 1st, 2015.  Yet, he claimed that ECM is accurate down to the day SO MANY times.  Actually, I recalled that he claimed the bombing started on Sep 30th/Oct 1st, which is the precise day of ECM, but the current content at the above link doesn't show that anymore.  Maybe he has gone back and changed it.

Here is his older article (from the below 3 links) indicating 10/7/15 is the date, and in this article, he claimed
"Both the 1994.25 and the 1998.55 turning points also produced clear events precisely to the day. The probability of coincidence of so many targets being that precise to the day was well into the billions."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170419192904/http://www.nowandfutures.com/buscycle.htm

If someone tells you that the cycle model is accurate down to the day, that means that the cycle length must be accurate to within 1/365 = 0.3%.  His 8.6 year for ECM must be accurate to be within 0.3%.  Here is THE NUMBER that he posted numerous times at the headline section on his own website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/

And the number is 8.6153846615

He has self-certified that the last ECM date was Oct 1st, 2015 on his sites many times.  And accurate past ECM dates that I can find are Feb 27th, 2007, and July 20th, 1998 are accurate past ECM dates down to the day.

Based on his calculation method shown here:
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/how-to-convert-ecm-dates/

I also realized one fatal mistake that he is making.  8.6 x 10 will give you 86, which means that after 10 ECM cycles.  Any decimal parts will be the same, which means that the dates in the year WILL be the same too.  If you keep adding 8.6 to 2015.75, you will only have the following decimal parts:

Decimal part in year (dates calculated using his published method above, for 365/366 days in a year):
0.15:  Feb 24th (54.75 days)  Feb 24th (54.90 days)
0.75:  Oct 1st (273.75 days)  Oct 1st (274.50 days)
0.35:  May 8th (127.75 days)  May 7th (128.10 days)
0.95:  Dec 13th (346.75 days)  Dec 13th (347.70 days)
0.55:  Jul 20th (200.75 days)  Jul 19th (201.30 days)

Well, apparent, that's not enough dates for him to fudge.  So now he adds a PI date also, which is 314 days from the ECM, besides all of the 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 6/8, 7/8 dates.

Guess what.  The world is so big, that you can always find a headline EVERYDAY to fit your dates.

And then he starts to use PI, and 10PI as 31.4, or 100*PI as 314, and then he has 224=8.6*26 for political cycle, and since his 8.6 is not exact, sometimes (in the last 16 years) this 224 is 223 years.  Sometimes it's 224.  Sometimes, it comes with a decimal part.  Etc.

And then he not only has 8.6 years, but also 8.6 months, and 8.6 weeks, and 8.6 days.  ANYONE who understands the mathematical definition of fractal will know that the FRACTAL is only based on 1 single RATIO.  You CANNOT keep multiply numbers to year, month, weeks, or days.  Who says 7 days or 7 is a magical number in nature??

Given the power with all of the above numbers, and the magic of multiplying everything by day/week/monh/year, or 10/100/1000/1 million/etc., he can make ANY days to fit.

If I do science like that, I can fill the entire number line with my dates.



i debunked.him long ago after following him for a week. Basically I do use his analysis for macro fundamentals but pay no attention to single days. Macro turning points are to be taken with a grain of salt. I def wouldnt use him to day trade thats throwing money away or better off doing random walk with some money managment which will get you farther.
Refcrypto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 03:58:13 AM
 #4474

I would like to read your ideas, your solution. Because this is a matter of debate.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 05:13:26 AM
 #4475

I read EVERY single public articles that he has ever written and available on the internet from year 2000 to about year 2015.  ANd I truly meant EVERY articles.  Never missed a single post.

Here is the biggest issue that I have about "his computer" or "AI" or whatever that exists.  He plays the numbers & dates to fit for his benefits.  Do you know the length of his ECM model?  He often uses 8.6 years.  In the articles from those 16 years, he used 8.6, 8.61, 8.615, 8.6153846615, and 8.6xxxxxx (depending on the day and his mood).

You would think that he is quite "scientific" as he often attacks the stupid economists without any scientific disciplines.  But when I read
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/

I immediately realized that he was making up numbers.

Why?  Because IN HIS OWN WORDS, the date should have been Oct 7th, 2015, instead of Oct 1st, 2015.  Yet, he claimed that ECM is accurate down to the day SO MANY times.  Actually, I recalled that he claimed the bombing started on Sep 30th/Oct 1st, which is the precise day of ECM, but the current content at the above link doesn't show that anymore.  Maybe he has gone back and changed it.

Here is his older article (from the below 3 links) indicating 10/7/15 is the date, and in this article, he claimed
"Both the 1994.25 and the 1998.55 turning points also produced clear events precisely to the day. The probability of coincidence of so many targets being that precise to the day was well into the billions."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170419192904/http://www.nowandfutures.com/buscycle.htm

If someone tells you that the cycle model is accurate down to the day, that means that the cycle length must be accurate to within 1/365 = 0.3%.  His 8.6 year for ECM must be accurate to be within 0.3%.  Here is THE NUMBER that he posted numerous times at the headline section on his own website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/

And the number is 8.6153846615

He has self-certified that the last ECM date was Oct 1st, 2015 on his sites many times.  And accurate past ECM dates that I can find are Feb 27th, 2007, and July 20th, 1998 are accurate past ECM dates down to the day.

Based on his calculation method shown here:
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/how-to-convert-ecm-dates/

I also realized one fatal mistake that he is making.  8.6 x 10 will give you 86, which means that after 10 ECM cycles.  Any decimal parts will be the same, which means that the dates in the year WILL be the same too.  If you keep adding 8.6 to 2015.75, you will only have the following decimal parts:

Decimal part in year (dates calculated using his published method above, for 365/366 days in a year):
0.15:  Feb 24th (54.75 days)  Feb 24th (54.90 days)
0.75:  Oct 1st (273.75 days)  Oct 1st (274.50 days)
0.35:  May 8th (127.75 days)  May 7th (128.10 days)
0.95:  Dec 13th (346.75 days)  Dec 13th (347.70 days)
0.55:  Jul 20th (200.75 days)  Jul 19th (201.30 days)

Well, apparent, that's not enough dates for him to fudge.  So now he adds a PI date also, which is 314 days from the ECM, besides all of the 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 6/8, 7/8 dates.

Guess what.  The world is so big, that you can always find a headline EVERYDAY to fit your dates.

And then he starts to use PI, and 10PI as 31.4, or 100*PI as 314, and then he has 224=8.6*26 for political cycle, and since his 8.6 is not exact, sometimes (in the last 16 years) this 224 is 223 years.  Sometimes it's 224.  Sometimes, it comes with a decimal part.  Etc.

And then he not only has 8.6 years, but also 8.6 months, and 8.6 weeks, and 8.6 days.  ANYONE who understands the mathematical definition of fractal will know that the FRACTAL is only based on 1 single RATIO.  You CANNOT keep multiply numbers to year, month, weeks, or days.  Who says 7 days or 7 is a magical number in nature??

Given the power with all of the above numbers, and the magic of multiplying everything by day/week/monh/year, or 10/100/1000/1 million/etc., he can make ANY days to fit.

If I do science like that, I can fill the entire number line with my dates.



i debunked.him long ago after following him for a week. Basically I do use his analysis for macro fundamentals but pay no attention to single days. Macro turning points are to be taken with a grain of salt. I def wouldnt use him to day trade thats throwing money away or better off doing random walk with some money managment which will get you farther.

Not sure if its fair to say it's possible to debunk someone based off a week's worth. But by daytrading method, I was referring to a particular, and rather strange method a user derived. Taking the numbers Socrates gave on ask-socrates for the index of multiple composites every day and then correlating them in real time. A little bit complicated, and it was never intended to be used that way, but in usage it is quite simple to use. If the Dow, NASDAQ, or S&P 500 hits a support or resistance at the same time one other one does as well (as long as it isn't in a 'cluster'), then that would be a trade entry signal to go long or short, respectively. I saw the charts for September some time ago I'll try to find the link later.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 05:53:51 AM
 #4476

I followed him for 16+ years, and I know all the ins & outs of his arguments.  First of all, we need to recognize that he is a good trader, and a possibly a good programmer, and smart.  So I would give him credits on his good calls due to him being possibly a good trader, but NOT due to his computer, because that most likely doesn't exist.  It is most likely a BIG LIE.

WHY?  He stated that he was able to achieve NLP or natural language processing in the 1980s or even 1970s.  He posted a photo with his PC.  You know what?  That is simply physically and computationally IMPOSSIBLE.  The computer power has increased exponentially faster throughout the decades.  Back in his days that he claimed he achieved NLP, and he also deliberately said that his daughter cannot discern whether she was conversing with a computer or a human (hinting that he passed the so-called Turing's test), it is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE to do such thing, because the computer will need to be several buildings big.  Now you can fit such big computer possibly into your cell phone.

He preys on people's ignorance about the ins & outs and status of artificial intelligence and speech recognition.  He claimed that he developed speech recognition many decades ago, but that is most likely impossible again.  I am an engineer who knows exactly how artificial intelligence and speech recognition are done these days.  Martin Armstrong knows nothing about neural network however.

You need to remember that he repeatedly claims that in order to forecast the whole global economics correctly, you canNOT miss any pieces of puzzles.  That is exactly right, and yet, that is also a requirement for his own models & predictions.  So if he missed a high in the stock market here, that means everything else will most likely be a miss AS WELL.

He keeps posting the pictures of traverse and longitudinal waves, and addition of the waveforms.  So if he knows the CYCLES, what the heck is the "cycle inversion".  That is one of the most puzzling parts for me to understand, until I realized that everything was just a scam.  If you know the high and low of different waves, and when you sum up the waves, you will know exactly where the new peaks and valleys are.  There should NEVER be any cycle inversion.  But he uses that cycle inversion a lot, whenever his predictions are off, and then he will say that the cycle is inverted.  What the heck?!  If you cannot even know whether it will be a high or low, what kind of tradings can you do?

The way he keeps you to come back to read his blog is this "gloom-and-doom" method.  Human will always try to look out potential hazards by default.  So he started posting plagues and wars since 2014, and then that timing was off, and then he says it's 2014 to 2017, and then he says it's 2014 to 2017, for the BEGINNING of such events.  Again, what the heck?  If he is off on one thing, that means the whole forecast cannot be correct.

His global watch is simply technical analysis at its most basics.  It requires a closing price for the given period (day/week/month/year).  It has NO prediction values, just like any other stock technical analysis.  To explain this, you can use moving average as the simplest example.  Plot moving average curves along the actual prices, and then it will give you the fantasy of predictive values.  However, if the stock price drops by 25% due to some earning event, the moving average curves will never tell you that.  However, if you plot more beyond that big drop, on the curve, it would give you the imaginary predictive power that the moving average curves track the stock prices.

And when he said that his computer continue to recognize new patterns forming in the prices.  I almost feel like screaming.  If you examine the actual number of the pattern#, it's already into 6 digits if I remember correctly.  Finding new patterns seem to be good, but it's NOT good for trading.  It's really easy to do this piece of software.  Simply continue to record new discovery of patterns of up/down/down/up/etc.  (or by whatever percentage of up/dn).  The PROBLEM is that if you are in pattern #1000, and supposedly given this pattern, you should be earning a 10% profit on your trade, what if this pattern #1000 morphs into pattern #1001, and in pattern #1001, you will actually lose 50% on your trade.

Guess what, he will tell you that his AI computer just found a new pattern of #1001 after the stock drops 50%, and labels the newest pattern as #1001.  Congratulation!  All of his patterns don't come with a probability which he fervently doesn't believe in, because he believes that he can predict everything.  Without a probability, a trader cannot size his trades at all.  Of course, the fact that you lose money has nothing to do with him.

The biggest problem with him continuously making market calls, but without doing the book-keeping of every call or trade is that there will ALWAYS be some people who interpret his posts in the lucky ways and end up earning money, and there will ALWAYS be people losing money based on his wrong calls.  If he is as good as he claims, all he needs to do is to make 20 trading calls that earns 20% each consecutively.  And that can silence all critics.  This is true with ALL stock market newsletters.  They will keep making calls.  The good newsletters or blogs will have maybe 60% hits.  For the 40% miss, they just need to manage it by either shuffling the losing trades off-table, or they can make SO MANY calls that you cannot either keep track of every calls, or that the pages get rolled off, and you don't see them.

So he has been posting on big earthquakes, and plagues, and vertical markets (when big inflation hits), etc.  This is scare tactics for you to come back to read, and also showing off his knowledge, especially through history.

For the first 16 years, I thought this man is really a genius.  Now, I realized he is probably a self-deluded con artist.  If he cannot tell the difference between 8.6 and 8.61 and the significance of it, there is ABSOLUTELY no way for him to predict ANYTHING "down-to-the-day".

I found another forum, where one of the people actually went to his seminar and commented:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=694414

I'm so glad that I never spent the money on seminar, but unfortunately, I was cheated out of several expensive reports which had a few pages of ambiguous predictions, plus several hundred pages of history.  I concur what that reader said about the Armstrong's reports.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 06:07:43 AM
 #4477

I read EVERY single public articles that he has ever written and available on the internet from year 2000 to about year 2015.  ANd I truly meant EVERY articles.  Never missed a single post.

Here is the biggest issue that I have about "his computer" or "AI" or whatever that exists.  He plays the numbers & dates to fit for his benefits.  Do you know the length of his ECM model?  He often uses 8.6 years.  In the articles from those 16 years, he used 8.6, 8.61, 8.615, 8.6153846615, and 8.6xxxxxx (depending on the day and his mood).

You would think that he is quite "scientific" as he often attacks the stupid economists without any scientific disciplines.  But when I read
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/

I immediately realized that he was making up numbers.

Why?  Because IN HIS OWN WORDS, the date should have been Oct 7th, 2015, instead of Oct 1st, 2015.  Yet, he claimed that ECM is accurate down to the day SO MANY times.  Actually, I recalled that he claimed the bombing started on Sep 30th/Oct 1st, which is the precise day of ECM, but the current content at the above link doesn't show that anymore.  Maybe he has gone back and changed it.

Here is his older article (from the below 3 links) indicating 10/7/15 is the date, and in this article, he claimed
"Both the 1994.25 and the 1998.55 turning points also produced clear events precisely to the day. The probability of coincidence of so many targets being that precise to the day was well into the billions."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170419192904/http://www.nowandfutures.com/buscycle.htm

If someone tells you that the cycle model is accurate down to the day, that means that the cycle length must be accurate to within 1/365 = 0.3%.  His 8.6 year for ECM must be accurate to be within 0.3%.  Here is THE NUMBER that he posted numerous times at the headline section on his own website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/

And the number is 8.6153846615

He has self-certified that the last ECM date was Oct 1st, 2015 on his sites many times.  And accurate past ECM dates that I can find are Feb 27th, 2007, and July 20th, 1998 are accurate past ECM dates down to the day.

Based on his calculation method shown here:
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/how-to-convert-ecm-dates/

I also realized one fatal mistake that he is making.  8.6 x 10 will give you 86, which means that after 10 ECM cycles.  Any decimal parts will be the same, which means that the dates in the year WILL be the same too.  If you keep adding 8.6 to 2015.75, you will only have the following decimal parts:

Decimal part in year (dates calculated using his published method above, for 365/366 days in a year):
0.15:  Feb 24th (54.75 days)  Feb 24th (54.90 days)
0.75:  Oct 1st (273.75 days)  Oct 1st (274.50 days)
0.35:  May 8th (127.75 days)  May 7th (128.10 days)
0.95:  Dec 13th (346.75 days)  Dec 13th (347.70 days)
0.55:  Jul 20th (200.75 days)  Jul 19th (201.30 days)

Well, apparent, that's not enough dates for him to fudge.  So now he adds a PI date also, which is 314 days from the ECM, besides all of the 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 6/8, 7/8 dates.

Guess what.  The world is so big, that you can always find a headline EVERYDAY to fit your dates.

And then he starts to use PI, and 10PI as 31.4, or 100*PI as 314, and then he has 224=8.6*26 for political cycle, and since his 8.6 is not exact, sometimes (in the last 16 years) this 224 is 223 years.  Sometimes it's 224.  Sometimes, it comes with a decimal part.  Etc.

And then he not only has 8.6 years, but also 8.6 months, and 8.6 weeks, and 8.6 days.  ANYONE who understands the mathematical definition of fractal will know that the FRACTAL is only based on 1 single RATIO.  You CANNOT keep multiply numbers to year, month, weeks, or days.  Who says 7 days or 7 is a magical number in nature??

Given the power with all of the above numbers, and the magic of multiplying everything by day/week/monh/year, or 10/100/1000/1 million/etc., he can make ANY days to fit.

If I do science like that, I can fill the entire number line with my dates.



i debunked.him long ago after following him for a week. Basically I do use his analysis for macro fundamentals but pay no attention to single days. Macro turning points are to be taken with a grain of salt. I def wouldnt use him to day trade thats throwing money away or better off doing random walk with some money managment which will get you farther.

Not sure if its fair to say it's possible to debunk someone based off a week's worth. But by daytrading method, I was referring to a particular, and rather strange method a user derived. Taking the numbers Socrates gave on ask-socrates for the index of multiple composites every day and then correlating them in real time. A little bit complicated, and it was never intended to be used that way, but in usage it is quite simple to use. If the Dow, NASDAQ, or S&P 500 hits a support or resistance at the same time one other one does as well (as long as it isn't in a 'cluster'), then that would be a trade entry signal to go long or short, respectively. I saw the charts for September some time ago I'll try to find the link later.
sounds weird I know. Im pretty good at those things.. pattern recognition is easy to me especially data and numbers.Obviously his calls short term were off so I stuck to his macro analysis instead. Its pretty easy for our brains to find meaning in noise. i used gann angles and s&r to find infliction points seems pretty spot on to the pip but as always its eye of the beholder. I suck at money management I bet I can make others rich sharing my knowledge in trading but found I dont have the patience id rather code and build cool things.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 02:07:05 PM
 #4478

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJQ6LzUuyppBt-L1zpQvz2KDgCfYhYHdaXKmVTXWMXs/edit?usp=sharing

This is the daytrading 'backtest' link. The reddit user is no longer there but it was still in user guide luckily, and ongoing apparently. Still half and half on Armstrong for now. The pattern recognition thing isn't a trading tool either; it just gives a general outlook. Not too reliable in any case, I think.
Thekees
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59
Merit: 1


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 03:13:52 PM
 #4479

I followed him for 16+ years, and I know all the ins & outs of his arguments.  First of all, we need to recognize that he is a good trader, and a possibly a good programmer, and smart.  So I would give him credits on his good calls due to him being possibly a good trader, but NOT due to his computer, because that most likely doesn't exist.  It is most likely a BIG LIE.

WHY?  He stated that he was able to achieve NLP or natural language processing in the 1980s or even 1970s.  He posted a photo with his PC.  You know what?  That is simply physically and computationally IMPOSSIBLE.  The computer power has increased exponentially faster throughout the decades.  Back in his days that he claimed he achieved NLP, and he also deliberately said that his daughter cannot discern whether she was conversing with a computer or a human (hinting that he passed the so-called Turing's test), it is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE to do such thing, because the computer will need to be several buildings big.  Now you can fit such big computer possibly into your cell phone.

He preys on people's ignorance about the ins & outs and status of artificial intelligence and speech recognition.  He claimed that he developed speech recognition many decades ago, but that is most likely impossible again.  I am an engineer who knows exactly how artificial intelligence and speech recognition are done these days.  Martin Armstrong knows nothing about neural network however.

You need to remember that he repeatedly claims that in order to forecast the whole global economics correctly, you canNOT miss any pieces of puzzles.  That is exactly right, and yet, that is also a requirement for his own models & predictions.  So if he missed a high in the stock market here, that means everything else will most likely be a miss AS WELL.

He keeps posting the pictures of traverse and longitudinal waves, and addition of the waveforms.  So if he knows the CYCLES, what the heck is the "cycle inversion".  That is one of the most puzzling parts for me to understand, until I realized that everything was just a scam.  If you know the high and low of different waves, and when you sum up the waves, you will know exactly where the new peaks and valleys are.  There should NEVER be any cycle inversion.  But he uses that cycle inversion a lot, whenever his predictions are off, and then he will say that the cycle is inverted.  What the heck?!  If you cannot even know whether it will be a high or low, what kind of tradings can you do?

The way he keeps you to come back to read his blog is this "gloom-and-doom" method.  Human will always try to look out potential hazards by default.  So he started posting plagues and wars since 2014, and then that timing was off, and then he says it's 2014 to 2017, and then he says it's 2014 to 2017, for the BEGINNING of such events.  Again, what the heck?  If he is off on one thing, that means the whole forecast cannot be correct.

His global watch is simply technical analysis at its most basics.  It requires a closing price for the given period (day/week/month/year).  It has NO prediction values, just like any other stock technical analysis.  To explain this, you can use moving average as the simplest example.  Plot moving average curves along the actual prices, and then it will give you the fantasy of predictive values.  However, if the stock price drops by 25% due to some earning event, the moving average curves will never tell you that.  However, if you plot more beyond that big drop, on the curve, it would give you the imaginary predictive power that the moving average curves track the stock prices.

And when he said that his computer continue to recognize new patterns forming in the prices.  I almost feel like screaming.  If you examine the actual number of the pattern#, it's already into 6 digits if I remember correctly.  Finding new patterns seem to be good, but it's NOT good for trading.  It's really easy to do this piece of software.  Simply continue to record new discovery of patterns of up/down/down/up/etc.  (or by whatever percentage of up/dn).  The PROBLEM is that if you are in pattern #1000, and supposedly given this pattern, you should be earning a 10% profit on your trade, what if this pattern #1000 morphs into pattern #1001, and in pattern #1001, you will actually lose 50% on your trade.

Guess what, he will tell you that his AI computer just found a new pattern of #1001 after the stock drops 50%, and labels the newest pattern as #1001.  Congratulation!  All of his patterns don't come with a probability which he fervently doesn't believe in, because he believes that he can predict everything.  Without a probability, a trader cannot size his trades at all.  Of course, the fact that you lose money has nothing to do with him.

The biggest problem with him continuously making market calls, but without doing the book-keeping of every call or trade is that there will ALWAYS be some people who interpret his posts in the lucky ways and end up earning money, and there will ALWAYS be people losing money based on his wrong calls.  If he is as good as he claims, all he needs to do is to make 20 trading calls that earns 20% each consecutively.  And that can silence all critics.  This is true with ALL stock market newsletters.  They will keep making calls.  The good newsletters or blogs will have maybe 60% hits.  For the 40% miss, they just need to manage it by either shuffling the losing trades off-table, or they can make SO MANY calls that you cannot either keep track of every calls, or that the pages get rolled off, and you don't see them.

So he has been posting on big earthquakes, and plagues, and vertical markets (when big inflation hits), etc.  This is scare tactics for you to come back to read, and also showing off his knowledge, especially through history.

For the first 16 years, I thought this man is really a genius.  Now, I realized he is probably a self-deluded con artist.  If he cannot tell the difference between 8.6 and 8.61 and the significance of it, there is ABSOLUTELY no way for him to predict ANYTHING "down-to-the-day".

I found another forum, where one of the people actually went to his seminar and commented:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=694414

I'm so glad that I never spent the money on seminar, but unfortunately, I was cheated out of several expensive reports which had a few pages of ambiguous predictions, plus several hundred pages of history.  I concur what that reader said about the Armstrong's reports.



I also don´t understand the Cycle inversion part. If there is a high in the array and price and the next turning point is also a high in price then you are in a cycle inversion, what good does that do anyone, it hindsight? Maybe the reversals have something to do with this, I am not sure. The part about him building the first AI is also something that I never really understood, is he really SOOOOO smart that he, and not any of the other programming geniuses, built it? And no one has been able to replicate it? Its a bit to much like a super hero story. I also have an issue with fitting data to the events as mentioned before. When do you use Pi or Pi/2 or 8.6 days, weeks, months or 8.6/2 etc. It´s just like all the other fib and technical analysis tools, check out Harmonic trading, its also all fib ratios combined to find turning points.

That being said, The reversals do seem to work well, even if just as support and resistance. I have kept elected reversal on my trading screen and it is eerie how prices often EXACTLY bounces of them.
I also find it persuading that he has been right on the mark using his reversals for most things he posts on. I can remember the EURUSD riding right up to the 1.6 after it elected the yearly in 2015, he predicted this way in advance. I mean it went up penetrated it by a few frigging pips and then dropped lower and bounced off the bearish yearly at 1.0365. The reversals seem to really be important levels for price. He was right about Oil when he said on Jan 2016 it would closing above 60$ before end of 2017. Price spent 10 months below the 2016 close only to rally in the last 2 months to teach 60$. With the dow he has been right, gold to. Its sometimes just hard to follow because he never gives all the info, its also just bits for the next few days or weeks, we never get all the info.

My point is there is definitely something to him and socrates. The mistakes I have made with regards to the arrays and reversals I am guessing are due to 1) lack of understanding of them and 2) Just a lack of information. We don´t have all the arrays or all the reversals so we are working with incomplete info.

I am definitely going to try the pro trader version when it finally comes out, if it works it will easily pay for its monthly fee and if it doesen´t well, its a very good asymmetric deal. If it does not work a few hundred dollars down the drain if it does work....

I do agree that his reports are ridiculously expensive, I honestly don´t get why they have to priced so high.



MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 26, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
 #4480

I got answers about his arrays before.  The bars ACTUALLY do mean the price levels, as he emailed me.  And I forgot where he said this, but he said that the price levels are relative only in THAT timeframe that is being plotted.  So you cannot compare the price levels between two different array plots.

Now, you can pull up ANY arrays from ANY of his posts.  Then you can tell me that whether he even gets 50% of the relative price levels CORRECT in any forecast arrays.  I checked some, and they were just WRONG.  And of course, he won't publish that.  I just happened to get that answer from him.

The reversals would work just like any other technical analysis tools.  Anyone can identify the support and resistance levels.  You don't need anyone else to tell you that.  It's just in any charts, and they do kind of work to a certain extent.  And not everyone would agree on the exact price numbers, but they would all kind of cluster around the actual support and resistance.

Again, I'm not saying that he is not a good trader.  He is probably at least top 10% of the traders.  BUT going from there and then to claim that he has an AI computer predicting the whole world for the long term, is simply ridiculous.

And I also agree that he has VERY GOOD insight to economics, which obviously deals with the very long term forecast.  But again, I don't need a con artist to tell me that stock markets always go up in the long term due to inflation in the long term, etc.  I know that.

The point that I'm trying to make is that when someone smart like him tells the truth 98% of the time, and tells lies just 2% of the time, it will be quite difficult for anyone to figure out the 2% untruths.  In this case, it's the ECM model, the AI computer/Socrates, etc.  Just ask yourself, or him, what is the value of the cycle length of ECM?  If such fundamental question cannot be answered within scientifically acceptable answers, such as mean/variance, then the whole ECM model is simply voodoo numerology.  According to him, it should be 8.6153846615 that he put on the headline section of his own website.  And I know for sure that value is WRONG, since it is not mathematically consistent.

Again, as I stated, it was simply PHYSICALLY impossible to have such computational power back in 1980s to achieve ANY realistic levels of natural language processing nor speech recognition, unless you spent tens of billions of dollars on the computer/network.  You would think that if he could have done any speech recognition, he would have written any published papers.  None at all.  There are decades of research on speech recognition to achieve what can be done today, which is still way far from perfect.

Anyway, he wraps the core untruths with his good trading abilities, and some automated technical analysis, and maybe some good political contacts.  That's all I am trying to say.  But then he would be just like any other good traders, and he will have hits & misses, but NOT an AI that analyzes the entire world objectively without any faults.  The way he approaches AI is the expert-system way, not the neural-network way, and that will NEVER work.


Pages: « 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 [224] 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 ... 327 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!