Martin Armstrong Discussion

[nattybear]

From my side I can only states that the bearish move on Nasdaq was properly predicted by the election of the weekly reversal of Mai 17th, the downturn move stopped at the border of another weekly reversal (June 3rd) which acted well as exit signal (not electing it) and now elected a new bullish weekly reversal that has been elected by more than 1% (risk of counter move is there). I have  now followed the reversals on Nasaq for one year and at least for me worked :-)

It is fair also to say that based on technical analysis alone the bottom of June 3rd would have been expected as it was exactly the minimum of March 8th. So no reversals would have been required to predict a proabability of bouncing.

Agreed - this is what kept me engaged for more than the first couple of months. The reversals do seem to provide some useful price points.

As time went on I saw several weekly reversals calling for Dow movements which turned out to be completely wrong. So while the daily levels were most useful as a confirmation tool I didn't find them any more insightful than decision points.

[1713977332]

1713977332

[1713977332]

1713977332

[1713977332]

1713977332

[1713977332]

1713977332

[1713977332]

1713977332

[DanB1]

From my side I can only states that the bearish move on Nasdaq was properly predicted by the election of the weekly reversal of Mai 17th, the downturn move stopped at the border of another weekly reversal (June 3rd) which acted well as exit signal (not electing it) and now elected a new bullish weekly reversal that has been elected by more than 1% (risk of counter move is there). I have  now followed the reversals on Nasaq for one year and at least for me worked :-)

It is fair also to say that based on technical analysis alone the bottom of June 3rd would have been expected as it was exactly the minimum of March 8th. So no reversals would have been required to predict a proabability of bouncing.

Agreed - this is what kept me engaged for more than the first couple of months. The reversals do seem to provide some useful price points.

As time went on I saw several weekly reversals calling for Dow movements which turned out to be completely wrong. So while the daily levels were most useful as a confirmation tool I didn't find them any more insightful than decision points.

You are right, the reversals are useful up to a point and often you see support/resistance around these price points. I have often traded these both moving with the flow when elected or as a counter move when not elected. From my experience around 60/70% of the time it works (which is okay but nothing more than that). So I combine it with macro data I buy (in this case from Hedgeye, also not perfect but gives me more insight on where we are) and my own technical analysis.

My experience is not to trade too often on reversals, only when the reversals say so, in combination with the arrays (they do change all the time but offer some insight), macro info and technical analysis.
So Socrates is more like an extra tool but not leading.

Regarding MA blogs. He always say what COULD happen. The annoying part is that when he's wrong he never rectifies himself. I know from his staff that a lot of people contact them on those occasions, but they like to see it as hate mail rather than people asking for clarification after an incorrect statement.

I have also requested them several times to make a video where Martin makes some live trades, and share it afterwards, just so we can learn from his decision making.
It might be a nice idea to share some trade/investing info so we can learn from each other. For instance, I trade, amongst others, the SP500 and EUR/USD so if there are others who would be interested we can share thoughts on this.

[Alex-11]

So Armstrongs 1% rule worked , but it didn't if you wanted to trade it.

Maybe it doesn't work each time, but if it worked 7 out of 10 times, it would still be good, right?
Also you could loose 7 times small amounts and have only 3 win's, but they are big enough to cover the 7 loosing trades and make enough profit on top, it would be fine. I haven't tested this with the 1% rule, but this is often times a strategy in trading which is supposed to work with certain methods. It "only" need to be observed long enough to know if it works on not.

Did anyone else see it??!

yes, I did.

all these signals reveal that the accuracy is 50%

Maybe your testing methods has some problems. I've done a reversal back test on 50+ samples and it had more than 50% success rate. This is only on Reversals. Very black and white. Buy and sell signals.
http://armstrong.forumprofi.de/showthread.php?tid=78
How did you backtest the reversals?  Only on elected reversals (like I did when you follow the link)?

It is fair also to say that based on technical analysis alone the bottom of June 3rd would have been expected as it was exactly the minimum of March 8th. So no reversals would
have been required to predict a proabability of bouncing.

Maybe, but reversals could give you additional confidence to enter/exit/omit a trade.

[s29]

Well, this week is turning into a groundhog event.

I've been following MA since November last year after a good friend extolled his accuracy in calling movements in the market. I'm now done with this little experiment of MA and Socrates.

In the last 6mths, we've had TWO significant market run-ups which MA has not only failed to identify but has also been bearish immediately before them.

In Dec (maybe Jan blog - I can't recall) there was a strong "DO NOT ATTEMPT TO GO LONG THIS MARKET" warning... The Dow subsequently put on almost 5,000 pts in a historic upwards movement... To borrow one of MA's catchphrases - that run itself (with some leverage) could be considered a 'trade of a lifetime'. He missed this one big time... Too bad if you were sitting out or even potentially short based on his perspective... Any follow up,  correction, or admission of getting that wrong? Nope...

More recently, across several blogs in May (I limited it to May because April's posts didn't have much info that was tradeable), MA claimed that if the weekly bearish reversals were elected then we should expect to see at least 23,700 (there were several 27K numbers - ~700 was the most common). Even if I'm generous with which day I choose to benchmark this against (i.e. from last Friday's close and not Monday's low) the Dow has run up ~1,200pts since then - or ~800pts from the reversals. So again, if you followed his advice you were either sitting out waiting for a 'restest' of the weekly reversals, OR more likely, short (with a significant run against you) plus the missed trading opportunity.

Rinse and repeat?

Granted - with the weekly reversals he has given two possible dates for a low to form in response to those being elected. In the May blogs, he highlighted either 10th June or weakness into July (you're allowed to pick which one for yourself - 50/50 odds - not bad). With the Trump/Mexico/China drama unfolding it's entirely possible that it falls apart and we see a sharp drop in the market... However, if you follow his approach then you have at a minimum missed a great trading opportunity in this week's quick run up and the subsequent decline, or even worse, nursing a sizable trading loss, praying that Xi publicly gives Trump the middle finger.

This short prediction now gets even more complicated because (as of Friday 2.21pm - trading at 26,023) there are presently 4 bullish daily reversals that could be elected today AND in MA's 6th June blog he screws you over further by stating that a close above 25,725 would signal a further rally...

Now - I'll give credit where it's due. The daily reversal levels have interestingly led to some trading opportunities and proven to be sticking points in price movements, however in my experience, they have not provided much more value than trading Decision Points.

It's been an interesting experiment but after 6mths - I'm done with it.

Note: FFS Marty - get your all knowing AI computer to figure out basic English grammar and use a damn spell checker... There are basic pre-written APIs out there that you can download... OR try out grammarly.com - it's free...

Great commentary, but it seems Marty's fans disagree with you:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/ecm-armstrongeconomics101/the-next-cycle-in-the-ecm-beginning-january-2020/

QUESTION: Martin,

I am a huge fan of yours and have followed your blog for probably 8 years now, I watched your many predictions using the AI models and have been amazed by their accuracy.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/the-future-which-door-to-enter/

QUESTION: Good day Mr. Armstrong, I have been a student of yours since 2001 and am always amazed at your work.

 

[AnonymousCoder]

Some have commented regarding "back testing". I must admit that it is actually the bad term because his system cannot be back tested by us because the system as such is secret, not available for inspection by a 3rd party. The next best thing we have is to take all the predictions that are available and check them after the fact. Hundreds if not thousands. Build an open source database of his reversals. So far, I have not seen such analysis. So far, I have not seen anyone doing this. It is a full time job for years.

Why is it a full time job? Because not only is the system secret, but as others pointed out, it is not possible to obtain historical data. So one has to build historical data. Collect from Socrates every day and, depending on the subscription level, especially every Thursday and Friday the Weekly Reversals before and after election. Use some 25 or more symbols, otherwise this is a waste of time.

The data we get is in the form of textual reports at best. From these reports we have to extract the reversal values and the close values, because Socrates uses proprietary integer format not the actual market close value.

Then after a couple of years worth of full time work, we have a database of a few hundred or thousand reversals that we can check against the next period close. That is still not good enough because we need to also discount the 1% rule and the superposition events.

With all that, we will find that the reversals have a success rate of roughly 50%. Anything else is cherry-picking.

Now here comes another twist. Armstrong will say you can't do testing like that. He will say one has to use the daily timing array to optimize the closing of the trade before the end of the period. Can you see that this is all nuts? Whenever one tries to be systematic, there is a catch for evasion. So let's do that. If we close the trades not on the end of the trading period but before, then the success rate will NOT improve because the daily forecast arrays are noisier than anyhing else, and they are ambiguous in a way that there are often multiple turning points per week. So we are back at 50% at best, and that is where the system stands. Anything else is wishful thinking.

There is an opportunity for Martin Armstrong to build a system that is better than that. But he hasn't done it. Now I am giving you an example that illustrates this fact. Martin Armstrong disputes the Global Warming dogma as pseudo science which is a cheap thing to do. He is actually right. But he is misleading us when he says that his computer predicts his climate theory. His computer created a Weekly Bearish Reversal 4260 for Wheat Futures /ZW on Friday 2019-05-10 elected at 4246 clearly within the 1% rule. That was the major low. Future close 2019-05-17 was 4650 up 9.9%, total disaster. One can confidently say that Wheat is up since then in spite of a prior global glut, due to crop failure in the US from colder than normal weather conditions.

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

[pereira4]

It would be great if Martin Armstrong open sourced Socrates. What's the big secret about it? If it's so good and it works, let people compile it themselves, and he would end up making MORE money than he would ever make by charging subscriptions into some obscure future-predictor. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Believing he will keep being right in the future is delusional at best. I think he is just a decent fundamental analyst, that's all. I don't believe in Socrates, Hyperwaves, and other so called "methods" to predict the future. Open source it or bust.

[trulycoined]

Did anyone else see it??!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/interest-rates/trump-v-federal-reserve-why/

He's deleted his final paragraph from this blog post..I definitely read it 12 hrs ago and now I can't find it. 

From memory it said something to the effect that '..I should warn you that the Govt are trying to silence me again, this time once and for all.  They can kill me - it does not matter as it will not affect the outcome...'

I am definitely worried for him.  He should leave the US and move to Asia..!

Yes! I saw this and thought it sounded deeply paranoid. Even stranger he has now removed it.

What was most odd was the sentence had no context to the other paragraph. Perhaps he accidentally copy and pasted before publishing it?

I doubt they are "out to get him" because if that were true, he would have long been made gone.

Perhaps as Barclay Lieb explains in his book I recently read, MA has completely lost his mind and as the years roll on and he gets older, his mental health might be worsening.

[trulycoined]

Being one to question everything, I have been on a long quest to either prove or disprove MA as a very convincing charlatan. That included attending his Orlando WEC 2018 at great expense to further draw a conclusion and if it meant I waved goodbye to the money, then a valuable lesson learnt. The event was interesting from a socioeconomics perspective, but I would not attend again. A very credible question I asked MA about his model was met with a less than credible (and defensive) response, which I found odd. That essentially set the rot in his aura of a trading "God" who has unlocked the keys to the universe...

I do however know of some people who I met at the event who have continued attending. They have dropped at least 5 figures now attending his events.

While I used to religiously read his blog, finding his content very interesting, that has began to wane in recent months as I find a lot of his calls come to pass with nothing noteworthy happening. It then throws his entire model into question.

I was considering going to his Rome WEC, but then found this forum as part of my "is he a charlatan?" research, and decided someone who is increasingly lacking in credibility is not worth $6k+ in ticket and travel costs.

As others have pointed out, the ambiguity of his predictions is becoming increasingly frustrating. Take today's blog as an example:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/the-future-which-door-to-enter/

"U.S. banks will probably be safe in general for the next two years. Just anything you put in a bank, do not lock it in long-term. Stay short-term — 2021 is where things start to go nuts."

And yet he has for years' explained the US was a safe haven and the USD being the world reserve currency would see huge capital flows into the US. That would be good for US banks as it means they have more capital to shore up any losses?

MA also avoids directly answering the question. He seems to do this a lot, an art in itself. Either there will be paragraph after paragraph that beats around the bush and never directly addresses the question, or it will be a short few lines that gives an abstract "answer". It is ironic he is so negative towards politicians, and yet he seems to be increasingly behaving like one.


I still think there might be something in his predictions about major socioeconomic events and how cycles repeat through everything in the universe. However, the predictions most people could make themselves if they bother to pick up a history book and understand what is likely to happen based on the economy, society and culture. It was obvious some time ago that Western Civilisation was on a decline and the concept of a "cycle" to all civilisations is not new.

Sir John Glubb of the British Army produced a famous paper on this in 1976:

https://medium.com/@TXHart/the-fate-of-empires-and-search-for-survival-or-why-do-empires-rise-and-fall-85dd3d9269ca

That was long before MA became "prolific" with his own theory on major cycles and specifically civilisations. The business cycle and cycles even in trading like Fibonacci are also not new concepts that are the preserve of MA.

None of these predictions require an alleged "AI" model, simply because that AI model would need to be fed INFINITE volumes of data otherwise it will NEVER be accurate. It is no different than trying to predict a roulette table based on number patterns, where instead the laws of physics and a computer will allow for a small edge on the house. In this scenario, there ARE few variables as it is just a table and a ball. But importantly, the edge such a device gives you is only 5-10%.

No such "edge" exists when the system is so complex, you are dealing with economics, society, culture and environmental factors. There are far too many variables for even a computer to even measure effectively to get a similar "edge", and I somehow doubt some ageing guy with a few million in the bank and a virtual office in St Pete has such a computer system.

It thus boils down to making no more accurate predictions than a well informed individual who is smart and can think deeply.

This is also why I think any MA predictions to do with trading, and especially day trading, should be ignored. He is useful for a quickfire dose of socioeconomic predictions, a lot of which are not that unique nor mindblowing. The rest is up to you to work out.

[THX 1138]

Did anyone else see it??!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/interest-rates/trump-v-federal-reserve-why/

He's deleted his final paragraph from this blog post..I definitely read it 12 hrs ago and now I can't find it. 

From memory it said something to the effect that '..I should warn you that the Govt are trying to silence me again, this time once and for all.  They can kill me - it does not matter as it will not affect the outcome...'

I am definitely worried for him.  He should leave the US and move to Asia..!

Yes! I saw this and thought it sounded deeply paranoid. Even stranger he has now removed it.

What was most odd was the sentence had no context to the other paragraph. Perhaps he accidentally copy and pasted before publishing it?

I doubt they are "out to get him" because if that were true, he would have long been made gone.

Perhaps as Barclay Lieb explains in his book I recently read, MA has completely lost his mind and as the years roll on and he gets older, his mental health might be worsening.

You might be interested to read this Steemit blog post by Anonymint which contains an admission by Armstrong that he is being harrassed by the government again:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/bitco-i-n-will-collapse-to-usd775-price-soon

[Gumbi]

Did anyone else see it??!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/interest-rates/trump-v-federal-reserve-why/

He's deleted his final paragraph from this blog post..I definitely read it 12 hrs ago and now I can't find it. 

From memory it said something to the effect that '..I should warn you that the Govt are trying to silence me again, this time once and for all.  They can kill me - it does not matter as it will not affect the outcome...'

I am definitely worried for him.  He should leave the US and move to Asia..!

Yes! I saw this and thought it sounded deeply paranoid. Even stranger he has now removed it.

What was most odd was the sentence had no context to the other paragraph. Perhaps he accidentally copy and pasted before publishing it?

I doubt they are "out to get him" because if that were true, he would have long been made gone.

Perhaps as Barclay Lieb explains in his book I recently read, MA has completely lost his mind and as the years roll on and he gets older, his mental health might be worsening.

 The government is moving into full totalitarianism and you think he is paranoid exposing the deep state in just about every blog post.  The problem is Armstrong has attracted too much attention and I believe inviting Nigel Farage may have sparked all of this. Martin needs to leave the USA as soon as possible before they lock him up again under some bullshit conspiracy case.

[trulycoined]

 The government is moving into full totalitarianism and you think he is paranoid exposing the deep state in just about every blog post.  The problem is Armstrong has attracted too much attention and I believe inviting Nigel Farage may have sparked all of this. Martin needs to leave the USA as soon as possible before they lock him up again under some bullshit conspiracy case.

[/quote]

If MA got more mainstream, perhaps I would believe it. But he remains a fringe commentator on alternative media channels. I doubt the powers at be would be much interested in him and with that, why would they ever release him from prison if they wanted him shut up? Makes no sense.

NF speaking at the Rome WEC was not publicised. I am in Europe and on all mainstream media, there was not a single mention of NF attending any speaking engagement. NF is someone who sees vast media scrutiny in literally everything. He cannot even walk down a street without it being front page news (milkshake assault). So picking up a speaking fee from a "convicted financial fraudster" would be ideal propaganda to further deflate his "credibility". Not a single report.

The latest court case in NYC sounds like:
1. A contractor was clearing out a property MA owned, perhaps while he was imprisoned.
2. Said contractor explained in their services contract, "anything they found" was legally theirs as signed by the person who authorised the work.
3. Said contractor found a horde of rare coins (the irony!).
4. Said contractor sold said coins to a third party.
5. Third party have recently decided to auction the coins.
6. MA has found out and come forward as the owner of those coins, disputing that third party purchased stolen goods from the cleaning contractor.
7. Auction house suspended auction of coins.
8. Investigation now opens up the original MA court case from 1999, where the judge ordered him to forfeit all of his assets, and that is why he was imprisoned for so long under contempt (under the belief he was hiding his assets).

This is what MA is now worrying about.

I don't think this is some deep state conspiracy. It is basically re-opening Pandora's Box and MA is stuck between either losing a high value asset that was stolen from him, or proving it is his and re-opening the SEC case from 1999.

I feel for him though, at his age, he does not need the stress of this legal dichotomy. I have met him and he does seem like a good, if somewhat flawed, person.

[NOCHYM]

A very credible question I asked MA about his model was met with a less than credible (and defensive) response, which I found odd.

What was the credible question you asked that made him defensive?

[AnonymousCoder]

Interesting that on the same day of my post where I covered this relativity MA answers a user question Reversals & Timing which clearly shows that Weekly Reversals are not valid standalone, but subject to the human interpretation of both weekly and daily forecast arrays which may negate the Reversal to mean the opposite or limit the validity to one day only. This in addition to the 1% rule and the not so rare superposition event. This reduces the confidence with what they can be traded to zero. I am just considering what seems to be the consensus in this group that the forecast arrays are much too ambiguous to be considered reliable. Here it is set in stone that they are strictly part of the Reversal system.

Here is the critical question to answer:

This is a computer based system, right? Using AI and so forth? Bullshit.

Someone please tell me that a computer cannot figure out these conditions and come up with a clear answer that the poor user has to find by navigating this maze? Give me a break! This is disgusting. Only people who want to be deceived, want to be lied to will believe this. Either MA does not know how to write computer programs, or he knows it is not possible and keeps beating around the bush. I said it before. The more time you try learning this stuff, the more time you spend losing money. The result is the same that his system does not work.

In other words, the forecast arrays will mostly not agree with the Reversals. So when the Reversals are good and you trade them, then you ignore the forecast arrays, fine. If you however take them seriously, then you do not trade and lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if the Reversals are bad, then it is your fault if you ignored the forecast arrays. Pick your poison.

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

[DanB1]

Regarding the arrays. I've noticed, while the top "Aggregate" line keeps chancing all the time (especially the daily), a Direction of Change, Panic Cycle or Volatility are often correct.
I find this especially with Panic Cycles. MA says it's an outside reversal 70% of the time and 30% of the time it's a strong move in 1 direction.
I'm not to sure on these percentages but almost always it's interesting move on these days.

[s29]

As others have pointed out, the ambiguity of his predictions is becoming increasingly frustrating. Take today's blog as an example:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/the-future-which-door-to-enter/

"U.S. banks will probably be safe in general for the next two years. Just anything you put in a bank, do not lock it in long-term. Stay short-term — 2021 is where things start to go nuts."

"Going nuts" is subject to a lot of interpertations I hear Marty uses that a lot. He sounds like Zero Hedge on a regular basis. What is exactly going nuts? That Trump won the US election? That the other side was not so pleased? That bund rates are negative? Marty sounds like a crybaby. Maybe he should change his website to armstrongeconomiccollapseblog.com

Just to give an example from March 28th:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/emerging-markets/the-financial-panic-of-2019/

The Financial Panic of 2019?
Blog/Emerging Markets
Posted Mar 28, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

The distortion in the yield curve is building with tremendous force. There are vast bids for US 90-day T-Bills from around the world and no offers. The shortage in US government paper is now being reported to us from repo desks around the world. There is a MAJOR PANIC in to the dollar as emerging markets come under a financial crisis, in part, instigated by Turkey. The government simply trapped investors and refuses to allow transactions out of the Turkish lira. Turkey’s stand-off with investors has unnerved traders globally, pushing the world ever closer to a major FINANCIAL PANIC come this May 2019.

There is a major liquidity crisis brewing that could pop in May 2019. European Banks have loaded their portfolios with real estate loans thanks to quantitative easing and negative interest rates, and emerging market debt. Spanish banks are especially invested in Turkish debt where they hoped to get the highest yields expecting that the IMF would never let Turkey default. On top of this, banks have been lending to each other to also avoid parking money at the European Central Bank where they would be charged with a negative interest rate.

Currencies from South Africa’s rand to Brazil’s real are witnessing a spike in their expected volatility, signaling concern they may weaken the most along with the Turkish lira going into May. The price swings have evoked sudden deep-rooted fears that there may be an emerging market crash before the end of the year.

We will update on the private blog in more detail. However, keep in mind that this Inverted Yield Curve is by no means reflecting a US recession. This is a global financial panic unfolding on a grand scale. This is why we selected May for the WEC in Rome. This is far more than just politics. This is beginning to evolve into a serious liquidity crisis where we may yet see more countries try capital controls to save the day.

Wel May is just over...

USD/Brazilian Real is practically flat this year.
USD/EUR is practically flat this year.
USD/Turkish lira is LOWER since May 1st.
S&P is still up 15% from January 1st.
High Yield is doing fine (even in May), so no liquiditity crisis.

Granted, year is not over yet, but calling May a "FINANCIAL PANIC MONTH" was completely nuts. It was a regular 38.2% correction after a historic bullish 25% move that Armstrong misssed.

[trulycoined]

I have also noticed the MA blog has been going overdrive in pushing the paid reports of late.

A lot of "questions" seem well set up, where MA explains X report is available to buy OR a subscription to Socrates.

I wonder if the impending legal action re: those ancient coins is requiring some very deep pockets...

[trulycoined]

A very credible question I asked MA about his model was met with a less than credible (and defensive) response, which I found odd.

What was the credible question you asked that made him defensive?

I asked MA how could Socrates be "accurate" where surely the more data you have, the more accurate the model would get. Thus, it is physically not possible to have plugged in infinite sources of data, so how can the ECM model be accurate?

MA's response to this was somewhat defensive. He seemed a bit taken aback someone would question his model and he explained that the model "has always been accurate" and pinpointed key historical flashpoints, therefore the need for ever increasing volume of data to improve accuracy was not required.


Like all AI systems or even ML, you MUST feed the machine significant volumes of data for it to predict future outcomes accurately. I felt his response was odd, especially for someone who (allegedly) has been developing one of the "first" AI systems since the 1970s, and yet he didn't seem to talk like someone who was hugely technical.

The other issues is this: if you feed a machine erroneous data, then the output will be erroneous as well. So if Socrates has been fed a vast amount of historical data, how can anyone be sure that data is accurate? Even with modern, sophisticated and digital data recording devices and measures, incorrect data is still collected. It would have been a lot worse during less civil eras or where recording data was done by ink and paper.

Data can also be fabricated, so how can you also be certain historical data from 500, 1000 or 3000 years ago is even correct?

These objective questions to Socrates/ECM don't appear to have any answers and I would hazard guess MA would retort to his default position of: the model has already pinpointed key historical events and so IS accurate...

[MA_talk]

@bikefront,

Regarding your post on "doing"

a Reversal analysis but if things are being deleted from his site, there is no point, as it puts the validity of the data to question.

on June 08, 2019, 03:31:02 PM

  You can document everything on Martin Armstrong by going to Wayback Machine and save the pages there.  He will NOT be able to change the posts AFTER you saved it.  And in fact, if he changes it afterwards, it's even better.  Because you can save the modified page AGAIN, and show that Armstrong attempted to change it.

That's how I'm doing it here:
http://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/p/economic-confidence-model.html

I just started this effort.  Not enough time spent yet, but anyone here is welcomed to contact me, and ADD their well-documented pages there.

A few pages I should back-search on his site for the actual pages to substantiated my claims, but anyway, my effort is really for people who potentially are researching on Armstrong, and it's totally "pro-bono" as they say.

By the way, I actually READ the legal documents from the judge on Armstrong's case.  I can't find the link, but recalling from my memory, the judge SAID (not in the exact words, but just from my memory) about Martin Armstrong:

He is extremely unrepentant and the judge was afraid of him doing harm to public, and the extra long sentence serves him well.

IF the government version of Armstrong's story is actually true (instead of Armstrong's version), Armstrong actually committed security frauds by making false brokerage statements along with Republic Bank, racking up lots of losses, and when found, he was in contempt of the court, because he was probably unwilling to give the information on the whereabouts, and give up any other non-bank assets (precious ancient coins, etc) to compensate his investors.  He probably stashed up those assets somewhere (and probably did that because of his "forecasting" ability on eventually being caught), and once he is out of jail, he can get to enjoy "his money".

The above is ONLY my conjecture of potentially what actually happens.  I used to side with Armstrong on his legal case.  However, right now, I don't want to take a side on that, because I don't think I've done enough research into it.

However, I have done enough research into Armstrong's claims on all of his forecasts and his Socrates, and I have to say that in all likelihood, there is NO artificial intelligence behind ANY of his computerized stuffs, because he himself is UNABLE to aggregate all the information and signals from his own models to give subscribers & readers USEFUL trading signals, but instead, he would continue to say that his models and Socrates are TOO COMPLICATE for any human to understand its entirety.

In other words, it's too complicate and cannot be understood, and tell me what is the USE for something that no human can understand nor automate.  Isn't that the same as junk?

[MA_talk]

Interesting that on the same day of my post where I covered this relativity MA answers a user question https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/ which clearly shows that Weekly Reversals are not valid standalone, but subject to the human interpretation of both weekly and daily forecast arrays which may negate the Reversal to mean the opposite or limit the validity to one day only. This in addition to the 1% rule and the not so rare superposition event. This reduces the confidence with what they can be traded to zero. I am just considering what seems to be the consensus in this group that the forecast arrays are much too ambiguous to be considered reliable. Here it is set in stone that they are strictly part of the Reversal system.

Here is the critical question to answer:

This is a computer based system, right? Using AI and so forth? Bullshit.

Someone please tell me that a computer cannot figure out these conditions and come up with a clear answer that the poor user has to find by navigating this maze? Give me a break! This is disgusting. Only people who want to be deceived, want to be lied to will believe this. Either MA does not know how to write computer programs, or he knows it is not possible and keeps beating around the bush. I said it before. The more time you try learning this stuff, the more time you spend losing money. The result is the same that his system does not work.

In other words, the forecast arrays will mostly not agree with the Reversals. So when the Reversals are good and you trade them, then you ignore the forecast arrays, fine. If you however take them seriously, then you do not trade and lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if the Reversals are bad, then it is your fault if you ignored the forecast arrays. Pick your poison.

Great catch, I totally agree with you!! 

Socrates is a computer based system, and it CANNOT figure out these conditions to give user a clear answer, because most likely, if Armstrong/Socrates ever does that, he/it will be SHOWN to be wrong RIGHT AWAY.

It is FAR BETTER to claim the complexity of his models/system, and push all the blames to the user for the wrong uses, and delegate all the responsibilities on trading to users.

Armstrong's logic is extremely simple.  If he is right, he is right.  If he is wrong, it's because you did NOT get it, or used his model incorrectly, or very likely, he will just say that you were dumb, and he is the smartest guy on Earth, and you just never get it, and it is because of your existence to take the other side of the trade, that makes his models always useful (but when in fact, as shown by many people on this forum, there was never any useful trades generated from his model.)

[olegrey]

Interesting that on the same day of my post where I covered this relativity MA answers a user question https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/ which clearly shows that Weekly Reversals are not valid standalone, but subject to the human interpretation of both weekly and daily forecast arrays which may negate the Reversal to mean the opposite or limit the validity to one day only. This in addition to the 1% rule and the not so rare superposition event. This reduces the confidence with what they can be traded to zero. I am just considering what seems to be the consensus in this group that the forecast arrays are much too ambiguous to be considered reliable. Here it is set in stone that they are strictly part of the Reversal system.

Here is the critical question to answer:

This is a computer based system, right? Using AI and so forth? Bullshit.

Someone please tell me that a computer cannot figure out these conditions and come up with a clear answer that the poor user has to find by navigating this maze? Give me a break! This is disgusting. Only people who want to be deceived, want to be lied to will believe this. Either MA does not know how to write computer programs, or he knows it is not possible and keeps beating around the bush. I said it before. The more time you try learning this stuff, the more time you spend losing money. The result is the same that his system does not work.

In other words, the forecast arrays will mostly not agree with the Reversals. So when the Reversals are good and you trade them, then you ignore the forecast arrays, fine. If you however take them seriously, then you do not trade and lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if the Reversals are bad, then it is your fault if you ignored the forecast arrays. Pick your poison.

What was the timeframe you used to determine if the daily/weekly/monthly elected reversal was a failure?