Martin Armstrong Discussion

[AnonymousCoder]

...
In many ways putting Socrates online and giving the level of access to data will actually be a detriment to MA and Socrates (if not downfall). More people will trade based on the 'concrete' numbers and commentary... Find it quantitatively lacking and then (hopefully) walk away because now it's clearly measurable. Either it works or it doesn't and he's opened up the platform for everyone to evaluate that in more detail than before...

Of course... He'll probably keep the scores of people who buy into his perspective and showboating but I'd expect any genuine trader who analyses their trades will find Socrates lacking value.

You hit the nail on the head. I wrote about this before here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51542437#msg51542437

Doomed.

The only reason why anyone ever wanted his computer or source code, and why anyone in the future would ever want his computer or source code, is to prove that fraud that I am describing, not so much because of the actual value of the forecasting.

Now I have proven fraud without access to the computer programs, just by inspecting the output alone. The best Armstrong can do now is to immediately shut down the service, and destroy the source code.

Because the cat is out of the bag.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[1714280837]

1714280837

[1714280837]

1714280837

[over45]

The only thing you've proven is that you are a disgruntled customer who likes to throw around the term "fraud".  

I don't have the benefit of viewing the reversals or historical private posts - but from what you have posted -- it actually looks to me that the lack of electing a 4th bullish reversal is done so because his system (if memory serves me right) confirms an actual bullish reversal only after the fourth confirmed reversal.  the fact that it hasn't done that yet - even though gold has moved up a bit - is exactly what I would want to see from his system because everyone else is screaming buy-buy-buy.  What does his system see that others don't ?  

Then there is this - which I don't understand but somehow effects reversals:  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/the-3-unit-of-time-reaction-rule/

And very quickly I glanced at the instructions on using the reversals and it says the timing and duration of moves is extremely important and sometimes you should hedge to protect against opposite moves from what they are indicating.  Did you do that?










  

[AnonymousCoder]

...
it actually looks to me that the lack of electing a 4th bullish reversal is done so because his system (if memory serves me right) confirms an actual bullish reversal only after the fourth confirmed reversal.
...

You better check the facts. Not a single published Weekly Bullish Reversal was elected yet Armstrong claims in hindsight the election of three Weekly Bullish Reversals. Why do you post here if you don't have the data, and if you cannot count?


Nobody, not even Martin Armstrong has the missing Reversals otherwise they would have posted them here long ago.

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[over45]

I think I see where the problem is - you are making assumptions using the wrong data to attempt to make your point.  He is likely talking about other elected reversals much further back in a time series of the pricing move - not the most recent move.  If you look at many of his past charts these elected reversals can be many months or even years apart.

I can't spend the time rummaging through all the data or blog posts - but I'd bet that's the case.

[AnonymousCoder]

I think I see where the problem is - you are making assumptions using the wrong data to attempt to make your point. He is likely talking about other elected reversals much further back in a time series of the pricing move - not the most recent move. If you look at many of his past charts these elected reversals can be many months or even years apart.

I can't spend the time rummaging through all the data or blog posts - but I'd bet that's the case.

Proof:

SOCRATES Detailed Analysis
THE IMMEDIATE ANALYTICAL STANCE AS OF THE CLOSE OF Mon. Jun. 24, 2019:
...
This market on the weekly level has been making new highs since the last low established 4 weeks ago, which is a turn to the upside for now. We did elect four Bullish Reversals which implies we have had a broad change in trend on this level.
...

The last low is the last low. The statements in this report are false, because after that low, not a single published reversal was elected. Please read the original post:

The Smoking Gun



Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[nattybear]

I think I see where the problem is - you are making assumptions using the wrong data to attempt to make your point.  He is likely talking about other elected reversals much further back in a time series of the pricing move - not the most recent move.  If you look at many of his past charts these elected reversals can be many months or even years apart.

I can't spend the time rummaging through all the data or blog posts - but I'd bet that's the case.

*slow clap*

Excellent rebuttal... I've just bolded a couple of statements in your comment that highlights the same ambiguous writing that comes from MA... Another unveiled... I'd love to see the troll bill that MA pays out - that's really become one of the most reliable explanations for the constant rotation of new users here with zero evidence to contradict the observations made across the board.

If you want to attempt a legitimate debate here is how it works. You counter an argument with research and evidence which DEMONSTRATES your point. In this scenario, we have an "it's likely", and an "I'd bet". However, let us not forget the same non-descriptive illusionary reversals that occurred at some point in the past which we have evidence of... Oh wait... No we don't...

[over45]

I think I see where the problem is - you are making assumptions using the wrong data to attempt to make your point.  He is likely talking about other elected reversals much further back in a time series of the pricing move - not the most recent move.  If you look at many of his past charts these elected reversals can be many months or even years apart.

I can't spend the time rummaging through all the data or blog posts - but I'd bet that's the case.

*slow clap*

Excellent rebuttal... I've just bolded a couple of statements in your comment that highlights the same ambiguous writing that comes from MA... Another unveiled... I'd love to see the troll bill that MA pays out - that's really become one of the most reliable explanations for the constant rotation of new users here with zero evidence to contradict the observations made across the board.

If you want to attempt a legitimate debate here is how it works. You counter an argument with research and evidence which DEMONSTRATES your point. In this scenario, we have an "it's likely", and an "I'd bet". However, let us not forget the same non-descriptive illusionary reversals that occurred at some point in the past which we have evidence of... Oh wait... No we don't...

I don't have to do anything to satisfy you.  I'm happy with what Socrates provides and have had no problems.  Like a previous poster said - I won't take anyone's word for anything and suspect their data selection is incorrect leading to a flawed analysis.   

Slow clap for your attempt.  Learn to read the fine print.

[olegrey]

...
So it would seem they don't keep a database of elected reversals.  I don't think it would be wise to speculate if armstrong is a fraud based on this response, because I want to make that assertion based on the actual reversal data.
...

I am addressing one thing at the time, because as we know the issue is complex.

If, as you are suggesting, you had all the reversals for a single market e.g. DJI, then, even if you wanted to, you would not be able to detect fraud. Because even if each and all the reversals would result in trading losses, so what? You trade on your own risk, and I think that Martin Armstrong is perhaps well covered legally here.

If however you can prove that Martin Armstrong has in his code a back door that lets him claim trading success i.e. gain where in fact the trade was a loss, or where Socrates has failed to provide a signal that would have provided you with a gain as claimed, then you have a case.

This case you cannot find with a spreadsheet of all the reversals because it is the reversals that are missing that is the problem.

However, all you need is to point to this URL:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51666429#msg51666429

This is the proof, this is the case I am talking about. I have made it very easy to see for everybody, because not only is this claim in the report somewhere, no, Martin Armstrong actually reads it out on his blog.

I could not have made it any easier, and you save yourself tons of work. Therefore, I am not going to send you any data. I just don't want that this crisp and clear message is diluted by any side issues that you may find doing your own research.

Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud

I am only interested in posted reversals in socrates that are subsequently elected by the market.  I don't care about phantom reversals that are posted after the fact.  I just want to comprehensively test the 3 time unit rule that we investigated with the feasibility study here:

Week 1 results
$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

Week 2 results
$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


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 would like to run a similar analyse to what I did with bikefronts daily reversals data as shown here: https://imgur.com/a/ZD5iFRq

If the success of a elected reversal is randomly 1 week, 2 weeks or 3 weeks, then I'll agree that the reversals are worthless.  Don't worry about me wasting my time on this.  I have the afternoons off for the next couple of weeks and rather enjoyed putting the feasibility study and analysis together!  If you request I won't put the results here to "muddy the waters", I just need to see what this analysis brings to fully decide what to think about socrates.  Like I said, I can't just take the word of people, I need to see it for myself.  Until my question about the 3 timeunit rule is answered I won't be fully convinced that the reversals are useless.  I look forward to your email with the data!

Thank you!

[AnonymousCoder]

I wrote in my last response to you that I am not willing to share my data with you. Would you please respect my decision. Thank you.

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[over45]

I wrote in my last response to you that I am not willing to share my data with you.

you're not willing to share your data with someone who wants to confirm your hypothesis and claims of fraud?  very telling.

[AnonymousCoder]

I wrote in my last response to you that I am not willing to share my data with you.

you're not willing to share your data with someone who wants to confirm your hypothesis and claims of fraud? very telling.

Thank you over45 to give me yet another opportunity to spread the message.

In case you haven't noticed, the cat is out of the bag and we don't need any more confirmation. We just need some way to keep you busy at this site, and it seems to be working.

Here is the article that does not require further confirmation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51666429#msg51666429

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[over45]

do you think if you keep repeating the same thing over and over people will take your word as gospel?  give the guy the data and let him confirm - why don't you?

let him have it.  can't hurt your cause - or could it?

[AnonymousCoder]

do you think if you keep repeating the same thing over and over people will take your word as gospel? give the guy the data and let him confirm - why don't you?
let him have it. can't hurt your cause - or could it?

It's interesting to see how my goods are in such high demand that even YOU cannot resist asking for them

Here is the article that does not require further confirmation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51666429#msg51666429

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[nattybear]

I don't have to do anything to satisfy you.  I'm happy with what Socrates provides and have had no problems.  Like a previous poster said - I won't take anyone's word for anything and suspect their data selection is incorrect leading to a flawed analysis.   

Slow clap for your attempt.  Learn to read the fine print.

Correct - and I'm not asking you to satisfy any of my questions...

Here's the catch though - if you want to demonstrate your credibility then you only need to step up and provide evidence (i.e. live trades using Socrates data) which demonstrate the effectiveness of the platform. Without that everything which you comment on - is baseless.

Like others here I've done my research. I've used the system for an extended period and found, in the best case scenario it doesn't provide much value above basic technical analysis, and in the worse case it is flat out incorrect leading to trading losses. You only need to look at the large movements across the Dow in the last 8mths to see how Socrates/MA failed categorically.

[over45]

I don't have to do anything to satisfy you.  I'm happy with what Socrates provides and have had no problems.  Like a previous poster said - I won't take anyone's word for anything and suspect their data selection is incorrect leading to a flawed analysis.  

Slow clap for your attempt.  Learn to read the fine print.

Correct - and I'm not asking you to satisfy any of my questions...

Here's the catch though - if you want to demonstrate your credibility then you only need to step up and provide evidence (i.e. live trades using Socrates data) which demonstrate the effectiveness of the platform. Without that everything which you comment on - is baseless.

Like others here I've done my research. I've used the system for an extended period and found, in the best case scenario it doesn't provide much value above basic technical analysis, and in the worse case it is flat out incorrect leading to trading losses. You only need to look at the large movements across the Dow in the last 8mths to see how Socrates/MA failed categorically.

Not going to happen because if you read my posts you'd know that I don't have access to the reversal system and am not an active trader.  I am commenting on the Anonymous poster who is calling Armstrong a fraud.  They are asked to supply data to someone who wants to verify their findings -- yet they refuse to supply it -- which to me means they either don't have it or haven't learned to use the information supplied properly.  Some are successful using Socrates - why?

You'd have to go back through the history of posted gold charts - both public and private posts - to find the previous bullish reversals as they relate to certain "time" sequences (which Armstrong keeps stating is the most important element - not price) to see where they are at vs. this move and to understand why his computer isn't electing bullish reversals.  I suspect this recent move up in gold is a reaction move and not the final bullish reversal up in this time sequence.  

As for my successes with Socrates - I'll list two that saved me over 50k.  First is his call on silver going down when it was around $31 oz. (dropped in half) - and the other was a pharmaceutical stock that I have traded for 40 years which goes up and down consistently - and when it was near the standard buy level I always use - Socrates flashed "caution - potential waterfall event" so I backed off and it read some data-point that I didn't see (probably off-market institutional selling), and the thing dropped $14 a share (nearly 22%) the next week and stayed down for quite a while.  Hasn't really recovered since.  

And I know by reading the terms of use of Socrates that it is not supposed to be the holy grail of investment research - but something that gives an additional perspective. That's why I originally asked about interpreting the arrays because I don't understand them but some do.  Guess maybe only one person here does.  If you want a service that for $200 month gives you solid trading ideas daily - there are dozens of them out there.  That is not what Socrates is.

[AnonymousCoder]

...

Thank you over45 to give me yet another opportunity to spread the message.

For those who do not know over45 is a Martin Armstrong affiliated troll who posts using multiple IDs such as Gumbi ... gets paid for posting here. Not a single word is true.

In case you haven't noticed, the cat is out of the bag and we don't need any more confirmation.

Here is the article that does not require further confirmation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51666429#msg51666429


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

[MTL4]

I've been following MA since at least 2013 and I have to say there's both good and bad in doing so.  I know alot are calling him a fraud and I've also met a few people who claim to have made alot of money trading using his system too.  I was highly skeptical myself and studied it extensively for my own curiosity like many others.  First, I can confirm from other sources that the system that MA made available to everyone as Socrates and the one he uses for himself are completely different.  Many people are duped into believing this which is unfortunate.  I also was hoping to get access to his famous buy/sell charts like this he posts on the blog occasionally but again never gonna happen (also confirmed).  So basically if you think you are going to get access to the actual program he uses by buying a Socrates service, I would urge you to save your money.  

I had the full service for Socrates when it came out in 2016 and did alot of work to see if the arrays and reversals actually did what they say they would.  After back testing everything I found that the daily and weekly (to a lesser extent) stuff was pretty much worthless.  The monthly was somewhat more accurate and the yearly was better still (I'm talking about the arrays from his system that he sometimes posts on the blog, not the public Socrates membership stuff).  MA has also confirmed in the past that the larger time frames were much more reliable than the shorter terms because the smaller time frames had large amounts of noise on them (this makes alot of sense in the age of electronic trading).  In general the arrays are confusing to use and the Socrates version available to the public is worthless for trading IMHO.  On the blog MA makes tons of claims about being right all the time and that it's always his computer making the calls but often you'll see in his writing that's he's making some subjective suggestions about outcomes based on his own personal logic.  For instance one of the documents he wrote in 2008 said we'd likely see US states starting to go bankrupt in 2009.  We know now that none have but some are getting close so the idea was right but the timing was off.  Did the computer predict that? Not likely.  I remember one call specifically in late 2015 that the DOW would crash the next week.  Nobody called that at all except him and the computer nailed it (I did very well on that one).  The 2015 WEC he also told everyone to short Deutsche Bank since they were in terrible shape over in Europe, again nailed that one too (that short has worked really well even to this day).  Then later in early 2016 he said the US dollar would continue to rise and gold would drop below $1000 (possibly even to $800).  I remember realizing the bottom in the commodities was in, USD had peaked and that MA's comments were just flat wrong.  I suspect he was using trading logic that if you shake both the long and shorts hard than that sets up a potential rally later.  That incorrect commentary even kept going while gold was skyrocketing and the USD tanked.  I was pretty pissed having missed that nice little run so it was at that point that I realized I couldn't rely on his system/commentary to trade and that I needed to create my own system.  I have now developed my own system which took some elements from his design (some parts I stumbled upon accidentally and they often match up quite interestingly with his reversals and trend lines) while incorporating other items I designed that greatly increase my trading efficiency.  Now I use his system/commentary more like an early radar warning to watch for things on my own system and my trading has improved substantially.  

To me there's no question that this guy is super smart and has learned very good trading instincts but just like anyone he's human and will inject his personal bias at times even if he says it's the computer.  The key is to be able to use it as a reference rather than using it as gospel to trade or you will lose money.  His macro level views are exceptional and I've yet to see anyone else even get close to thinking out of the box like he can.

[AnonymousCoder]

...
First, I can confirm from other sources that the system that MA made available to everyone as Socrates and the one he uses for himself are completely different. Many people are duped into believing this which is unfortunate. I also was hoping to get access to his famous buy/sell charts he posts on the blog occasionally but again never gonna happen (also confirmed). So basically if you think you are going to get access to the actual program he uses by buying a Socrates service, I would urge you to save your money.
...

Thank you for posting. Please let me address one point as quoted. There are two possibilities here for the system he uses for himself:

1) that such system does not exist. Highly likely given the fact that a lot of what Martin Armstrong posts on his blog is purely made up as we all know. In that case, the plots with the buy / sell signals are just mock ups of an ideal scenario for marketing purposes. In any case, as I have seen this on video, it is all in hindsight.
2) that such system does exist. In that case it would be fairly easy to set up the publicly available Socrates system to create the trades for his bag holders. In that context, my published observation
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg51666429#msg51666429 of published fake profitable trade signals for failed or missing reversals is simply super scary.

Both cases are scary, the conclusion must be to stay away from Socrates.

If in fact he has a different system to play with, there would be no reason for him to waste his time with such a risky business of selling Socrates as software as a service. And there would be no reason for him to run conferences, orchestrate the "The Forecaster" movie and so on because his own system would finance all of his hobbies he would ever have such as study monetary history.

I have come to the conclusion that if I believe someone then I do and if otherwise I find so many lies as I do with Martin Armstrong then I do not believe anything and I analyze / question anything he says (as others have done as well) and the outcome of that is fairly amazing. This laborious approach works fairly well here with different people in this blog comparing notes.

Apart from both scenarios being possible, my own opinion about this other system is that it does not exist.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain

[MTL4]

I can't vouch for the fact of whether or not the system he claims to use exists or not (I have 3rd party confirmation of it but again very hard to say personally).  I can tell you that the arrays that he puts on the blog are considerably different from the ones Socrates puts out, that much I am 100% sure.  I have no idea on the buy/sell system either.  Yes that could certainly be faked but again very hard to say for sure without getting actual access to it for back testing.  In back testing the blog arrays they have appeared to be far more accurate (esp on the monthly/yearly stuff) while the Socrates ones were basically useless in any time frame at least in my experience.  You can't fake arrays posted years in advance nor is the probability of them being randomly correct a likely scenario either.  So to me that says the other model probably does exist at least to some extent and that Socrates was some sort of neutered attempt to capitalize on the model.  To me he has made enough correct calls that surprised me over the years so that is why I personally wouldn't be so quick to discredit everything he says.   Yes I totally agree you definitely need to recognize that his words may contain large doses of ego, bias and conjecture but as long as he occasionally has these flashes of brilliance then I'll continue to listen (using my own system to verify it all of course). 

[Indyz]

Wow some real BS in this thread, a lot of it from "newbies" like me. Mostly in support of MA. Tells me something.......

Very motivated by an agenda?