Bitcoin Forum
November 16, 2019, 09:05:58 PM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 [316] 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 617626 times)
Alex-11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 29, 2019, 09:50:19 PM
 #6301

Alex-11, maybe it's now up to you to show us some live trades according to MA's rules.
(Alex-11 will probably say that he does not have to proof or show us anything, which will confirm again our conclusion that nobody can make proper trades using Socrates)

nice one  Grin
well then, if you know that nobody can make proper Socrates trades, then there is no point for me to try to prove it.

...hen posting 1 'live' trade according to the reversals and losing money...

wow, you can judge a trading system by looking at one single trade. awesome!

Alex-11, can you answer my question about this 1% rule please?
I don't know how well the 1% rule works. Not tested it.
I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish.  But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.
1573938358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573938358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573938358
Reply with quote  #2

1573938358
Report to moderator
1573938358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573938358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573938358
Reply with quote  #2

1573938358
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.
1573938358
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573938358

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573938358
Reply with quote  #2

1573938358
Report to moderator
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
August 29, 2019, 10:46:09 PM
 #6302

Alex-11, maybe it's now up to you to show us some live trades according to MA's rules.
(Alex-11 will probably say that he does not have to proof or show us anything, which will confirm again our conclusion that nobody can make proper trades using Socrates)

nice one  Grin
well then, if you know that nobody can make proper Socrates trades, then there is no point for me to try to prove it.

...hen posting 1 'live' trade according to the reversals and losing money...

wow, you can judge a trading system by looking at one single trade. awesome!

Alex-11, can you answer my question about this 1% rule please?
I don't know how well the 1% rule works. Not tested it.
I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish.  But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.

Making a call isn't a big deal. Objectivity will reveal a W/L. Simple. Does it work? Is the question. My testing says no, as well as everybody else on the forum who posted live calls based on them.

I think his point was that so few people stepped up to the challenge of posting live calls because it didn't work. Olgray is posting but it seems to me that he wants to see if it works or not, and is undecided as of now.

If you claim it works, then please post live calls. Otherwise, it just goes into the fortune cookie pile.
Alex-11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2019, 12:11:31 AM
 #6303

Making a call isn't a big deal. Objectivity will reveal a W/L. Simple. Does it work? Is the question. My testing says no, as well as everybody else on the forum who posted live calls based on them.
I think his point was that so few people stepped up to the challenge of posting live calls because it didn't work. Olgray is posting but it seems to me that he wants to see if it works or not, and is undecided as of now.
If you claim it works, then please post live calls. Otherwise, it just goes into the fortune cookie pile.

for the moment I don't want to say anything more then what I did say.  I know it can be hard to tolerate dissent when it's against an alleged consensus, but I don't think this thread is only about getting all people here on the same page. The title of the thread is not "Martin Armstrong is a fraud or is talking nonsense and if you disagree, then prove your point".

Dan81 seems to claim that 1 loosing trade does proof something. I say that this could  also go to the small bad luck pile.  Smiley

If I feel I want to post some live trades, I will do. But until then I still want to be able to comment here in this forum without haveing to justify myself every time why I don't prove that Socrates works.
Meanwhile I'm referring to my post from earlier about the 16 year buy/sell signal study. And yes, I know some of you don't trust the data provided by MA.
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
August 30, 2019, 01:56:54 AM
Last edit: August 30, 2019, 03:56:24 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #6304

...
If I feel I want to post some live trades, I will do. But until then I still want to be able to comment here in this forum without haveing to justify myself every time why I don't prove that Socrates works.
Meanwhile I'm referring to my post from earlier about the 16 year buy/sell signal study. And yes, I know some of you don't trust the data provided by MA.

This chart was produced by the con man Martin Armstrong himself in hindsight.

The guy who has no problem lying, for example telling us that he runs his "models" on a very specific US Government Supercomputer installation, see https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/p/lie-about-super-computer.html

By even mentioning this exercise, where the "data" was derived by screen scraping it from the chart, presenting this as a proof or test you clearly discredit yourself. Go away. This is an insult. There is no other way to put it. People please go ahead, read this stuff and tell us what you think about it.

To be relevant, any data has to be posted here in advance. Marketing material posted by a convicted felon and associates does not count. Sorry.

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

See https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
August 30, 2019, 04:48:49 AM
 #6305

Alex, if you want to use data, you should use the calls in the Private Blog in order to collect Reversals performance, as they were posted in advance. Of course, I don't know if they were changed or not, but as MA states, it is not possible to use the hindsight data Armstrong used.

This reminds me, there was a post by Armstrong some time ago of a spreadsheet of Reversals and performance. Something to do with Superposition events. So if he has the data as he claims, he should be ready to supply it
.
etoimene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 30, 2019, 07:28:21 AM
 #6306

Alex, if you want to use data, you should use the calls in the Private Blog in order to collect Reversals performance, .

No way! Blog posts are nothing compared to subscription.
Weather subscription data can be used to trade profitably is another question.
DanB1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 30, 2019, 07:41:10 AM
Last edit: August 30, 2019, 08:46:17 AM by DanB1
 #6307

Alex-11, maybe it's now up to you to show us some live trades according to MA's rules.
(Alex-11 will probably say that he does not have to proof or show us anything, which will confirm again our conclusion that nobody can make proper trades using Socrates)

nice one  Grin
well then, if you know that nobody can make proper Socrates trades, then there is no point for me to try to prove it.

...hen posting 1 'live' trade according to the reversals and losing money...

wow, you can judge a trading system by looking at one single trade. awesome!

Alex-11, can you answer my question about this 1% rule please?
I don't know how well the 1% rule works. Not tested it.
I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish.  But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.


Haha, right. Exactly the answer I was expecting. So up to now there is nobody that wants/dares to show that it works.
They will all say that it works but they are not interested in proving it, they only want to talk about it. Great.
So, this is really like discussing how to run a marathon with somebody that can hardly walk.
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
August 30, 2019, 08:05:51 AM
 #6308

...
I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish.  But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.

If there is a sustained smooth rally then the reversal system elects one bullish reversal after another and they are all profitable. That is no proof that the "system" is profitable. This is like saying that a simple trailing stop loss strategy is profitable.

So what is the point please of making such statements?

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

See https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
August 30, 2019, 08:27:28 AM
Last edit: September 01, 2019, 10:27:25 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #6309

Pissing in the Wind

In order to make an assessment of this Socrates contraption, an assessment that would actually be worth spending time on one needs to trade a few hundred reversals in multiple markets over an extended period of time, say a year or two because the markets have different phases. And you need computer programming skills to do this because otherwise manually doing this would require an army of people punching data into spreadsheets, also resulting in lots of errors.

That is obviously not possible because con artist Martin Armstrong does not provide authentic verifiable historical data.

However, it has been done anyway using other channels and the result was catastrophic.

The discussion here about what I would call single observation statistics is the most incompetent I have ever seen. Total waste of time. You are over-estimating your capabilities. Pissing in the wind. And that in light of the fact that nobody can post here ANY positive results even on a small scale. There should be at least something truly remarkable to indicate that there is some value somewhere. No such thing. Depressing.


So what can you take to evaluate? Not many options. Quality of service? Integrity? Perhaps make an assessment based on how these people behave and based on trust, credibility, customer service level and so on. We have seen that Armstrong has the worst possible results / grades in this category.

So yes, all complete idiot type of people who want to get rid of their money really fast, go ahead and buy Martin Armstrong services.


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

See https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog
Alex-11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2019, 09:38:01 PM
Last edit: August 30, 2019, 10:09:03 PM by Alex-11
 #6310

By even mentioning this exercise, where the "data" was derived by screen scraping it from the chart, presenting this as a proof or test you clearly discredit yourself.
And why exactly do you think it's not precise? Of course you think I'm totally nuts (as usual) and take the prices from this chart. If you zoom into the chart, you can easily identify the candle sticks and take the precise price from a proper chart.

To be relevant, any data has to be posted here in advance. Marketing material posted by a convicted felon and associates does not count. Sorry.
Mantra, mantra, mantra. I've explained before why I think it's relevant, but when you rant, you forget those things. And no, I won't search the last 50 pages just for you to find the exact post, hahaha.
Alex-11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2019, 09:47:52 PM
Last edit: August 30, 2019, 10:30:12 PM by Alex-11
 #6311

If there is a sustained smooth rally then the reversal system elects one bullish reversal after another and they are all profitable. That is no proof that the "system" is profitable. This is like saying that a simple trailing stop loss strategy is profitable.
So what is the point please of making such statements?

You do again misunderstand my intention. Someone has asked me to comment on the 1% rule, but I can't. instead I've offered an alternative  (follow elected reversals). There was no intention to prove the whole reversal system. It was just a hint.

Of course, I don't know if they were changed or not, but as MA states, it is not possible to use the hindsight data Armstrong used.
Of course I also don't just believe everything he posts and says. I wonder why it's supposed to be not possible to use (backtest) the data in hindsight apart from accusations that he is "tweaking" the charts. Any other point?
Alex-11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2019, 10:05:38 PM
Last edit: August 30, 2019, 10:28:01 PM by Alex-11
 #6312

In order to make an assessment of this Socrates contraption, in an assessment that would actually be worth spending time on one needs to trade a few hundred reversals in multiple markets over an extended period of time, say a year or two because the markets have different phases.
well if you want to be so sure about it, why do you give up after a few month of Socrates Pro? On others you want to put very high standards which you do not follow yourself.

And you need computer programming skills to do this because otherwise manually doing this would require an army of people punching data into spreadsheets, also resulting in lots of errors.
wow, one point I tend to agree.

However, it has been done anyway using other channels and the result was catastrophic.
I would be interested to see this.

Pissing in the wind.
sometimes you make me laugh.  Grin  it's at least something.

So yes, all complete idiot type of people who want to get rid of their money really fast
well, this is again wrong when I think of you and others. For how many years did you  follow MA? 10 years? 15 years? And there are so many others only in this forum who did the same. You and others have proven to be incredible patient with MA.
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 12:45:18 AM
 #6313

... placeholder for all the responses ...

 Kiss

You are the ideal type of person for a Martin Armstrong / Socrates support role. You should apply for a job at AE Global. You definitely have the patience that nobody else of the other trolls has. Congratulations!

The other trolls have all left because they could no longer face that bullshit that I am writing here. Gumbi, Strike Eagle 26, over45, Jason100, all gone, totally demoralized. With you, I really don't know what else to do.

Regarding why I do not have more patience with Socrates Pro version is because my computer told me to stop it. I said What? Are you kidding? and the computer replied Stop it, create your own trading strategy.

So I thought alright I am going to try that. After all I must be able to trust my computer, right? During the last six trading days I increased my capital by 51.8%. Just by doing what my computer told me to do. This gain by the way includes the profit from the trade I suggested here for you guys earlier. So it is no bullshit, you can check that trade.

You should really do the same, honestly. Get this Armstrong chart that you screen scraped the numbers off, get the numbers, and reverse engineer the system behind these numbers. This is doable! Then you should have a system that is even better than Socrates! Honestly. Then you can make 102% in 6 trading days, better than me, double. Imagine! I just do not have the patience that you have so I have to feel content with half the profit of what you get. Trust my computer!

 Kiss

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

See https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog
olegrey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 03:16:35 AM
 #6314

Hi all, work has been pretty crazy this week, so I have some updates from the past week.

I sold my DOG position because the DOW elected a bullish reversal on 8/28 for a 1.41% loss.  I should have sold it on 8/26 because it showed the exact same situation as the 8/15 doji on the etf, but I missed it because like I said, work was crazy.  Anyway since the DOW elected a bullish reversal on 8/28 I bought a position in UDOW (3x dow etf) because I was feeling aggressive.  The DOW then elected another bullish reversal on 8/29 so I bought another position in UDOW.  On 8/30 the market closed lower then it opened but was still TRUE so, as per my rules, I sold both positions making 3.76% and 0.05% respectively

Succesful Reversals: 5
Failed Reversals: 3
Total gain: 14.24%
Total loss: 5.58%
Total profit: 8.66%  
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 04:17:25 AM
 #6315

Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).

Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.

olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing Smiley beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)

Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 04:20:21 AM
 #6316

https://i0.wp.com/www.ped30.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Golden-Egg-300x200.jpg?fit=842%2C400&ssl=1 Oh, and here is the picture of my golden goose, for proof
olegrey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 06:36:24 AM
 #6317

Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).

Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.

olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing Smiley beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)

Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages".  As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs.  Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know.
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 02:32:46 PM
 #6318

Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).

Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.

olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing Smiley beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)

Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages".  As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs.  Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know.

I meant that you're using leveraged and nonleveraged ETFs, so the directional movement as expressed in percentages are not the actual more as predicted by Socrates but rather increased by the leverage inconsistently. It isn't as consistent as an unleveraged position- this is where personal knowledge/experience comes in
olegrey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 05:18:12 PM
 #6319

Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).

Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.

olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing Smiley beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)

Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages".  As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs.  Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know.

I meant that you're using leveraged and nonleveraged ETFs, so the directional movement as expressed in percentages are not the actual more as predicted by Socrates but rather increased by the leverage inconsistently. It isn't as consistent as an unleveraged position- this is where personal knowledge/experience comes in
Gotcha, so you want me to express the percentages in terms of the DOW, not the ETFs I'm using?
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
August 31, 2019, 09:35:56 PM
 #6320

Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).

Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.

olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing Smiley beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)

Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages".  As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs.  Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know.

I meant that you're using leveraged and nonleveraged ETFs, so the directional movement as expressed in percentages are not the actual more as predicted by Socrates but rather increased by the leverage inconsistently. It isn't as consistent as an unleveraged position- this is where personal knowledge/experience comes in
Gotcha, so you want me to express the percentages in terms of the DOW, not the ETFs I'm using?

Yes that would be more accurate
Pages: « 1 ... 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 [316] 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 »
  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!