Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 102. (Read 647176 times)

I think a few of the reversals were miss typed.  Do you mind checking the 6/3/2019 WMT,
4/15/2019 COST, 9/29/2017 COST, 7/29/2016 SPY.  I think these reversals were not elected because you used the closing on Monday instead of the closing on Friday.  Also what does "Rev Dt" column mean?

Re-posting the link to the spreadsheet I started a couple months ago.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZJ8y06rALN-1eUPX_1ZbAfJ4SPP1oM_LcMHg5fsLW_I/edit#gid=0

My main purpose for posting this originally was to try to get some confirmation in my understanding of the reversal system which was not available via Socrates support and this is the only specific trading strategy listed in the documentation (open a position the open of the next trading day and close at the election of the reversal in the opposite direction). But since this information is proprietary I do not want to continue to update with new information. I will close out the open positions when that happens, however, so I will do some updating. And, I will say that the major changes are for the weekly reversals in the DOW (bullish positions were closed out and bearish positions were opened and then closed out all with losses), the USD/EURO weekly and monthly bearish reversals were all closed out at $1.1343, and WMT had several weekly and a monthly bullish reversal elected so more positions would have been opened.

In my limited experience so far I do not believe that Socrates is a fraud. The monthly reversals have overall worked very well for the handful of assets shown here. Also, there has always been follow-through when all of the bullish or bearish monthly reversals are elected for an asset.

I also believe that Socrates is extremely complicated and getting started is completely overwhelming. There is a lack of support for users trying to understand how to use the system, there are bugs, there is limited historical data, no back-testing capabilities, and some critical information is not included that was available in the version WEC attendees were able to use. It also does not have any capabilities for screening assets. Even if you have the ability on your own to scrape the data it is too expensive to get access to what you would need (i.e. the reversals). It essentially feels like the system is still designed for institutional users who would have access to everything in Socrates.

I am currently trying to build a strategy, as alluded to but not well-described in the user manual, for using failed election of reversals which seems to have some promise. Again, the lack of back-testing capabilities and limited access to data makes this an extremely difficult task.

@bikefront @MTL4 Could you send me a PM? I have some questions for you on your experience with Socrates.

Just curious, just because some register to express their thoughts, observation, experiences, interaction and results with his trading system means we're trolls? Personally I approach everything in this fashion, buying a car, house, brokerage, etc. Also that goes for trump even though I voted for him, just to make a point, not to start a political argument 

....

Now, in this article, Armstrong apparently believed in the scooter man.  He almost certainly made up the $50 million claim, because the so-called "perpetual machine" that takes zero energy input, but continues to produce energy, will NEVER EVER exist due to conservation of energy law.  ANYONE who has taken a high-school physics class would know that the scooter man is a FRAUD, but of course, not Armstrong who has only a high-school degree based on DeSmogBlog.

That article ALONE is sufficient proof to show how much Armstrong knows about real science.  Armstrong doesn't understand the most basic law of energy conversation.

The ideas on perpetual motion machines have been with us going back several hundreds of years, if not thousands of years, and ALL have been proven FAKE.

How in the world can any people trust the "energy" model from this man when he doesn't even know the most basics, and when he cannot tell the difference between 8.6 versus 8.615?

From Armstrong's
"You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again."

Armstrong apparently confuses with inertia of the scooter, or moving at a constant velocity, with power/energy.  If there is ZERO friction, which is almost like in outer space, objects DO move forever, but the very moment, you convert its kinetic energy for your own use, the object will slow down.

Charlatan has done it again!

Lol. Look at the troll army go

So many of us newbies here, I wonder.....

We failed to elect a key weekly bullish reversal but the main reason for the entry is because Armstrong has stuck his neck out here and said we needed to close this week above 26951.82 to imply a further advance.  Also the 1st of July has been a turning point with the next showing up as the 8th and normally one turning point is followed by the opposite event on the next, on the energy model we are seeing the market making new intraday highs while the energy models are declining which indicates this rally is not sustainable. On the weekly energy model we are seeing the energy peak before the price high which indicates we may be forming a temporary high.  The energy model is very important to understand and helps you to identify when the market is over-bought or over-sold.

Th exit point is the most immediate daily bearish reversal which lies at 26536.32 but we have crash mode technical support at 26617 which may also offer support.

I searched if MA had mentioned that "magnetic engine" before, and he has:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/technology/death-of-oil-em-drive/

Thing is, even a cursory knowledge of famous scientists like Tesla would mean inventing stories like this is not difficult. What MA talks about IS feasible:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html

The Barron's article is here:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904548404576397780966386382

Very few citations from MA himself before the 13 June 2011 calling for such a "low", and nor any direct call that markets would continue a massive rally for the next 8 years (or longer) from there.

As is usual with MAs prophecies, they are difficult to truly fact check and most of what the ECM calls usually does happen +/- 4 years, but then that isn't much better than any other analyst.
...

Con man meets con man

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/

Martin Armstrong fails to tell us what he did with the scooter man.

Actually I think he just made this up - never happened.

It can't get any lower than this. What's next? UFOs?

Remember, Armstrong is the guy who keeps telling us about unscientific methods in Climate Change research.

..........

Okay, thanks. Thought you were gone:)

So, entered the trade because a bullish reversal was not elected? Or a bearish was elected? Or the array's showed a turning point?
Can you please you explain? The thing is that it's not about this specific trade. It's about showing that you can trade according to the reversals and arrays and that it works and it's a repeatable process.

If you can let us know here on the blog.
Looking forward to it!

Oh, and his blog post was exactly 2 x 8.6 days (17.2) after my 21 June post, to the DAY 😱 🤣

Here's another forecast, from my brain, not an invented AI machine: the next WEC will be in Jan 2020 and in either Europe or Singapore. Await the hysterical articles building up to Jan 2020. Too predictable...

Spot on!  I was at the 2015 WEC and was also on that WEC forum too and I remember that situation all too well.  We went through those arrays exhaustively to try and make any sense of how to trade them and finally most came to the same conclusion, they don't work (at least not the system we had been given access to).  I remember seeing a few people posting that they knew how to read the system and made plenty of money using it but when pressed the analysis seemed to be similar to MA where one minute they'd be using one part of the array to forcast something and then next time they'd be using something else often siting all sorts of rules tha MA had given over the years.  It was that exact scenario that caused me to develop my own system when MA's call for new lows continued while the market had certainly appeared to turn and was looking like it might be a good run (and it was).  Like you I also trade using my own TA then only use MA's ECM to see if it lines up with my own analysis (like an early warning indicator).  

I have to admit, that's not how I remember it or happening but I do remember many people taking a lot of losses. I also say to myself while reading him, damn, did I miss a blog and the vagueness of his forecast.

I am currently trying to build a strategy, as alluded to but not well-described in the user manual, for using failed election of reversals which seems to have some promise.