Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 112.

nattybear

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: bleachberu on June 23, 2019, 11:55:41 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: bleachberu on June 23, 2019, 09:42:39 PM

MA posted a few PBs since Friday. One of them discusses Gold. I am guessing this is the cleanest one to track. Let's see if he or socrates gets it right.

I trade the Dow myself so let's see if the 4 groups of 'false moves theory' will play out. This is the first time I heard him speak or write about the 4 groups...

This week's market moves will be quite binary simply because the Trump-Xi meeting outcome is more or less binary. Realistically, they will kick the can down the road?

End of this month will also be the monthly close.

Btw, another cycles forecaster is also calling for a large drop to come soon (this summer), followed by a climb higher (final 5th wave to a 500 year top). This bit jives with MA's PB call.

Could you expound on this 4 groups thing? Oddly, it sounds like something I've developed although I'm sure it is something else.

MA is saying that before a massive move up or down, it is always preceded by a set of 4 false moves ie opposite direction. E.g. he is saying the Dow will rocket a lot higher from here but only after 1 more false move down. So far, he noted there have been 3 false 'corrective' moves downwards from 2018 till now. So 1 more more to go...

I believe he is basing this theory of 4 moves from the 1929 and 2008 crash, which was also similar.

He illustrated the above using charts.

But if you read the blog he doesn't just say it's a simple 4 moves... He states:

There is still the risk of ONE MORE false move to the downside. After that, the fourth knock of heaven's door is typically when it will open. Worst-case scenario, it will be the fifth knock. But we are headed to new territory - PERIOD!!!!!!!

It's the same commentary with a wide range of potential possibilities... Is it 4 or is 5? Maybe it's not a big deal because you could just sit it out until you see a break to the upside. Fine...

However his last statement... New territory? DO NOT forget that it was only 2 months ago that MA had repeatedly claimed that there would be 'no new highs this year'. The man continues to make predictions which fail and then updates them at a point in the future where hopefully people have forgotten about the past.

trulycoined

jr. member

Activity: 85

Merit: 8

Quote from: AnonymousCoder on June 24, 2019, 04:32:02 AM

How big is it really?

I remember having read this years ago:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/institutional-time-share/

We have constructed the First Fully Functioning Artificial Intelligence System Correlating the Entire World Economy 7 days a week, 24 hours per day. There is simply nothing like this model in the financial world.

Our actual annual cost just in energy to run such a system is in excess of $6 million.

That would be be roughly 1/30 of Google's computer systems consumption in 2014.

Found this as the top search result by searching: "supercomputer $100 million $6 million" and actually laughed out loud:

http://techland.time.com/2012/06/19/what-exactly-is-a-supercomputer/

Though it is not dated, MAs blog post is from October 2012. That is known by looking at the name of the supercomputer image in his blog post: /armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/10/ibm-1.jpg. The Time article was published June 2012, the same year IBM Sequoia was deployed. The article explains: "Aside from the $6 to $7 million in annual energy costs, you can expect to pay anywhere from $100 million to $250 million for design and assembly".

So it would appear MA read an article(s) around mid-2012 about supercomputers (presumably because he knows F all about supercomputers, but needed to know in case anyone questioned him) and thought, what a brilliant new addition to the blog to hoodwink more readers and/or int'l consulting clients (assuming the latter exist). He used the lower range numbers for both and a few months later out comes a new blog post about his alleged supercomputer.

That is right everyone, it cost him approx $100m to build his supercomputer and yes, approx $6m in annual energy costs! Perhaps Time magazine interviewed MA before writing the article? /SARC

Also, Sequoia is built for the US government for nuclear weapons simulation. It cannot be used by private organisations and is open only to "national laboratories" for research projects and only after a proposal for that project has been accepted. You can't just plug something into it like cloud hosting and off you go. Moreover, a "government system" is directly opposed to MA's mantra of not having any dealings with government - why would he be using a supercomputer built for them? Should MA not be concerned of the security risk if he really doesn't want to give away the "secrets" of Socrates?

This also reveals MAs own fact checking is dubious and mistakes slip in. Surely he should have thought someone might look into IBM Sequoia only to find it is a government defence supercomputer?

The more we dissect and dig into MA's nonsense, the more it becomes clear the guy is a total fraud.

He is extremely convincing because he intermixes socioeconomic facts with a lot of BS. That is how a lot of con artists work and why they convince even the most sceptical and intelligent of people. His socioeconomic work is reasonably sound. His pi theory is also interesting, but does not appear to be full proof. The AI supercomputer/Socrates/trading platform is world-class BS, but then it fills conference halls and drives subscriptions, so what does he care? It serves its purpose. For MA.

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

How big is it really?

I remember having read this years ago:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/institutional-time-share/

We have constructed the First Fully Functioning Artificial Intelligence System Correlating the Entire World Economy 7 days a week, 24 hours per day. There is simply nothing like this model in the financial world.

Our actual annual cost just in energy to run such a system is in excess of $6 million.

That would be be roughly 1/30 of Google's computer systems consumption in 2014.

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

bleachberu

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: bleachberu on June 23, 2019, 09:42:39 PM

MA posted a few PBs since Friday. One of them discusses Gold. I am guessing this is the cleanest one to track. Let's see if he or socrates gets it right.

I trade the Dow myself so let's see if the 4 groups of 'false moves theory' will play out. This is the first time I heard him speak or write about the 4 groups...

This week's market moves will be quite binary simply because the Trump-Xi meeting outcome is more or less binary. Realistically, they will kick the can down the road?

End of this month will also be the monthly close.

Btw, another cycles forecaster is also calling for a large drop to come soon (this summer), followed by a climb higher (final 5th wave to a 500 year top). This bit jives with MA's PB call.

Could you expound on this 4 groups thing? Oddly, it sounds like something I've developed although I'm sure it is something else.

MA is saying that before a massive move up or down, it is always preceded by a set of 4 false moves ie opposite direction. E.g. he is saying the Dow will rocket a lot higher from here but only after 1 more false move down. So far, he noted there have been 3 false 'corrective' moves downwards from 2018 till now. So 1 more more to go...

I believe he is basing this theory of 4 moves from the 1929 and 2008 crash, which was also similar.

He illustrated the above using charts.

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

Quote from: ?? on ??

What I am interested in is if we choose up to 3 time periods and max drawdown within that period as well. E.g. if the Reversals are supposed to work within a 1, 2, or 3 period timeframe, how often does it win? And how much is the drawdown we take to get to that win? We also cannot let the winner run further because the reversals have specific exit targets.

These questions MUST of course be asked. First, if for example, we use 3 periods to trade, then on election of a reversal we need to skip the next 3 periods before we elect any new reversals to avoid double-counting.

The other possibility is that we allow to trade an unlimited number of positions, and that is perhaps similar to what we see in the reports. In this case, we need to set aside a substantial amount of cash, limiting profit potential.

However, in the reports, the number of positions runs very high, so they are perhaps not closed after 3 periods in this case.

Unfortunately, Socrates does not have any published reproducible rules; all is subject to human interpretation. But as we continue here, I am willing to just go along with what comes up in this discussion, just for fun.

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

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

Quote from: olegrey on June 23, 2019, 08:56:01 PM

...
From armstrong's manuals
"The election of a reversal normally indicated that the expected high or low that should
unfold could take place in as short a time span as 1 to 3 units of time (i.e. daily, weekly,
monthly, or quarterly). Therefore, a low may develop the very next day following the
election of a Daily Bearish Reversal or within the next few days. The same is true for all
price activity levels. "

This is a link to an image of a spreadsheet I did for these daily reversals for 3 days after the election of the reversal. Unfortunately it is too big to put in comma delineated format as above and newbies aren't allowed to post images ?

Interesting. I like your contributions. We can debate constructively based on them.

We are making money if we are trading 3 periods while we are losing money if we are trading 1 period.

So what have we done here? We cherry-picked. We like the 3-period result more (after the fact) so we choose that and then we are winning.

Next time we are doing this in a different market, or in a different time of the year we are finding that the 2-period result is the winner and the 1-period result and the 3 period result are the losers. Then we pick the 2-period result and we are again winning.

We are always winning.

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

bleachberu

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

MA posted a few PBs since Friday. One of them discusses Gold. I am guessing this is the cleanest one to track. Let's see if he or socrates gets it right.

I trade the Dow myself so let's see if the 4 groups of 'false moves theory' will play out. This is the first time I heard him speak or write about the 4 groups...

This week's market moves will be quite binary simply because the Trump-Xi meeting outcome is more or less binary. Realistically, they will kick the can down the road?

End of this month will also be the monthly close.

Btw, another cycles forecaster is also calling for a large drop to come soon (this summer), followed by a climb higher (final 5th wave to a 500 year top). This bit jives with MA's PB call.

olegrey

newbie

Activity: 83

Merit: 0

Quote from: ?? on ??

A premium subscriber sent me the following data on the Dow Jones and used a spreadsheet to make it... Anyone else with a sub will be able to verify the following info. It appears that Socrates does have a slight edge in predictive value...if we use it as an inverse function.

###### Daily Reversal Analysis : Dow Jones Industrials, Trading periods: 1
Current: 2019-01-30, bullish: 2445902 close: 2501486, Next: 2019-01-31, close: 2499967, winning: false,
Current: 2019-02-05, bullish: 2467674 close: 2541152, Next: 2019-02-06, close: 2539030, winning: false,
Current: 2019-02-12, bullish: 2484208 close: 2542576, Next: 2019-02-13, close: 2554327, winning: true,
Current: 2019-02-13, bullish: 2528764 close: 2554327, Next: 2019-02-14, close: 2543939, winning: false,
Current: 2019-02-15, bullish: 2531205 close: 2588325, Next: 2019-02-19, close: 2589132, winning: true,
Current: 2019-02-22, bullish: 2556462 close: 2603181, Next: 2019-02-25, close: 2609195, winning: true,
Current: 2019-03-05, bearish: 2584647 close: 2580663, Next: 2019-03-06, close: 2567346, winning: true,
Current: 2019-03-07, bearish: 2556462 close: 2547323, Next: 2019-03-08, close: 2545024, winning: true,
Current: 2019-03-18, bullish: 2531205 close: 2591410, Next: 2019-03-19, close: 2588738, winning: false,
Current: 2019-03-21, bullish: 2557130 close: 2596251, Next: 2019-03-22, close: 2550232, winning: false,
Current: 2019-03-22, bearish: 2562130 close: 2550232, Next: 2019-03-25, close: 2551683, winning: false,
Current: 2019-03-29, bullish: 2562130 close: 2592868, Next: 2019-04-01, close: 2625842, winning: true,
Current: 2019-04-01, bullish: 2576220 close: 2625842, Next: 2019-04-02, close: 2617913, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-04, bullish: 2590626 close: 2638463, Next: 2019-04-05, close: 2642499, winning: true,
Current: 2019-04-10, bullish: 2612230 close: 2615716, Next: 2019-04-11, close: 2614305, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-12, bullish: 2612230 close: 2641230, Next: 2019-04-15, close: 2638477, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-16, bullish: 2637081 close: 2645266, Next: 2019-04-17, close: 2644954, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-18, bullish: 2612230 close: 2655954, Next: 2019-04-22, close: 2651105, winning: false,
Current: 2019-04-29, bullish: 2644452 close: 2655439, Next: 2019-04-30, close: 2659291, winning: true,
Current: 2019-05-01, bearish: 2644452 close: 2643014, Next: 2019-05-02, close: 2630779, winning: true,
Current: 2019-05-02, bearish: 2639718 close: 2630779, Next: 2019-05-03, close: 2650495, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-07, bearish: 2621277 close: 2596509, Next: 2019-05-08, close: 2596733, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-09, bearish: 2589655 close: 2582836, Next: 2019-05-10, close: 2594237, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-13, bearish: 2581491 close: 2532499, Next: 2019-05-14, close: 2553205, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-23, bearish: 2551738 close: 2549047, Next: 2019-05-24, close: 2558569, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-28, bearish: 2538402 close: 2534777, Next: 2019-05-29, close: 2512641, winning: true,
Current: 2019-05-29, bearish: 2531205 close: 2512641, Next: 2019-05-30, close: 2516988, winning: false,
Current: 2019-05-31, bearish: 2500900 close: 2481504, Next: 2019-06-03, close: 2481978, winning: false,
Current: 2019-06-06, bullish: 2450403 close: 2572066, Next: 2019-06-07, close: 2598394, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-07, bullish: 2556054 close: 2598394, Next: 2019-06-10, close: 2606268, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-12, bearish: 2603394 close: 2600483, Next: 2019-06-13, close: 2610677, winning: false,
Current: 2019-06-13, bullish: 2537357 close: 2610677, Next: 2019-06-14, close: 2608961, winning: false,
Current: 2019-06-18, bullish: 2588940 close: 2646554, Next: 2019-06-19, close: 2650400, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-19, bullish: 2599886 close: 2650400, Next: 2019-06-20, close: 2675317, winning: true,
Current: 2019-06-20, bullish: 2598808 close: 2675317, Next: 2019-06-21, close: 2671913, winning: false,
Win count: 14
Lose count: 21

From armstrong's manuals
"The election of a reversal normally indicated that the expected high or low that should
unfold could take place in as short a time span as 1 to 3 units of time (i.e. daily, weekly,
monthly, or quarterly). Therefore, a low may develop the very next day following the
election of a Daily Bearish Reversal or within the next few days. The same is true for all
price activity levels. "

https://i.imgur.com/h4i9j8T.jpg
This is a link to an image of a spreadsheet I did for these daily reversals for 3 days after the election of the reversal. Unfortunately it is too big to put in comma delineated format as above and newbies aren't allowed to post images

Gumbi

copper member

Activity: 168

Merit: 0

Just know that there are many people out there such as myself who are doing well with this model and have been using it for many years now. I also thought it was going to be a lot easier but if you are patient there are certain trades that have a high degree of accuracy and these tend to be trades where there are big gaps between reversal points. There is not much risk to the downside if you simply use the most recent elected reversal as a area of support and if the market goes below you sell.

this service only fully released with all the reversals and array's in 2019 so we are still in the beginning stages i'm sure a lot of things that you have been asking for will be possible in the future.

nattybear

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: Gumbi on June 23, 2019, 04:38:49 PM

There are thousands of people who are making money and the system works for them the only way you can justify this as a fraud is by claiming that all readers comments are fake which is a a huge stretch and delusional at best. Millions of people are visiting his website and clearly are getting a lot out of his work it appears you are the minority here. Just because this system doesn't work for you doesn't make it a scam. In order for you to successfully use this model you need a good understanding of technical and cyclical analysis, be able to read the array, how the market interacts with the reversal system which is all not easy I can tell you but trading in and of itself is difficult and the majority lose money.

You simply cannot explain how me and others you don't know about have had tremendous success with this model because yes at first we failed but in time it all starts to make sense and you need to remember Armstrong is only human trading on his commentary is stupid, you only trade on reversals and in most cases you have all lost a trade because you traded on Armstrong's opinion. Most people are not cut out to handle the emotional stress that it takes to be a trader and it is always going to be your own EMOTIONS that get the best of your judgement and that seems to be what has happened to a lot of you.

@bikefront

that daily reversals system spreadsheet is a joke because it does not take into account what the market did intraday so if the Dow elected a daily reversal and the market moved up and bounced off the next daily bullish only to close lower than the one it elected, you would call that a failed reversal which it is not. Bikefront if you really want to know whether this system works or not you will need to test it for yourself and go in with no preconceived notion, why are you relying on the opinions of others?

Interesting - I wonder if you're the same person who I was emailing in response to my question to Socrates. Same story with the same lack of evidence - just the constant stream of unsubstantiated chatter...

Nevertheless, it's good to know that you also consider MA's commentary completely void of tradable information... Because if he's getting his information from Socrates well... we can safely derive the fact that Socrates is also lacking accuracy.

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

Quote from: Gumbi on June 23, 2019, 04:38:49 PM

...
@bikefront
that daily reversals system spreadsheet is a joke because it does not take into account what the market did intraday so if the Dow elected a daily reversal and the market moved up and bounced off the next daily bullish only to close lower than the one it elected, you would call that a failed reversal which it is not.

I assume you would want to make that call whether to abort the trade before the end of the trading period, in this case a single day session. Like sell the intraday high or buy the intraday low? Great.

To do so, you would need to know the future to know whether the price will go further in the same direction.

Since we do not have a crystal ball, that is not possible.

Trading based on the value of yet another reversal as you say is even mode dubious.

The simple reason is this:

IF we wanted to trade any way based on another reversal, then we would need to have the confidence that that other reversal can be relied on. There is no reason to believe that the next reversal is more reliable than the current one, because as the statistics show, the success rate is only 40%. So following your principle, one would not be more successful but LESS successful, losing even more money faster. That is because the failures accumulate not cancel each other out.

With all the information available like technical analysis, momentum, energy, timing, all available in a single report, one would expect that this objective test method would find that the Socrates comes out with a signal that produces at least a break even result statistically.

You don't even now what logic is let alone arithmetic. Calling a series of test results, with a clearly indisputable objective and clearly indisputable results a joke proves that you are incompetent beyond any doubt. At the very minimum, any of your users who took the time to painfully create statistics will be thoroughly alienated by your dismissive statements.

The Socrates system should provide any such statistics as part of the service so everyone can verify the system. This should end this discussion immediately. So upgrade the system and show that the users are wrong. Anything else is just cheap talk against thorough analysis.

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

Gumbi

copper member

Activity: 168

Merit: 0

There are thousands of people who are making money and the system works for them the only way you can justify this as a fraud is by claiming that all readers comments are fake which is a a huge stretch and delusional at best. Millions of people are visiting his website and clearly are getting a lot out of his work it appears you are the minority here. Just because this system doesn't work for you doesn't make it a scam. In order for you to successfully use this model you need a good understanding of technical and cyclical analysis, be able to read the array, how the market interacts with the reversal system which is all not easy I can tell you but trading in and of itself is difficult and the majority lose money.

You simply cannot explain how me and others you don't know about have had tremendous success with this model because yes at first we failed but in time it all starts to make sense and you need to remember Armstrong is only human trading on his commentary is stupid, you only trade on reversals and in most cases you have all lost a trade because you traded on Armstrong's opinion. Most people are not cut out to handle the emotional stress that it takes to be a trader and it is always going to be your own EMOTIONS that get the best of your judgement and that seems to be what has happened to a lot of you.

@bikefront

that daily reversals system spreadsheet is a joke because it does not take into account what the market did intraday so if the Dow elected a daily reversal and the market moved up and bounced off the next daily bullish only to close lower than the one it elected, you would call that a failed reversal which it is not. Bikefront if you really want to know whether this system works or not you will need to test it for yourself and go in with no preconceived notion, why are you relying on the opinions of others?

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

This Socrates system, after we exposed it here as a failure, a scam, will not last for long.

It would be nice to see the source code published so that people can see why it doesn't work from that perspective.

Hopefully, Armstrong's failures will be documented in a lasting fashion, in such a way that he cannot become a legend for future generations of naive people who might be mystified by "his" ideas, and potentially wanting to re-create this system.

Everyone can have ideas. Ideas are cheap. But to make ideas work, that is a different matter. Armstrong has copied many original ideas from others and claimed they are his own. He uses them to keep his blog busy.

There is no productive outcome. Only wishful thinking. We are looking at a complete train wreck.

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

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

@MA_talk feel free to take whatever is helpful. It'll be useful to others in the future and that is only a positive.

More than happy to provide greater detail on the interactions I've had if it's beneficial.

MA_talk

member

Activity: 226

Merit: 10

Thanks everyone for your contribution. Although it's probably not needed, I'd like to ask permission to republish some of your contents here out of politeness. Whatever you post on the public internet obviously becomes publically owned by default. Unless I hear from you via private messages, I will assume that it's okay for me to re-write and refer some of your contents here on my armstrongecmscam dot blogspot dot com.

What trulycoined summarized was what my conclusion as well: Socrates is at worst a total scam, or at best UNusable (since supposedly, according to the "best experts" here, it takes YEARS of HUMAN learning, when there is supposedly an AI behind it that could easily incorporate ALL the models & signals for the user and tell them to either buy or sell).

I LEARNED simply NOT to visit Armstrong's blog at ALL. His posts are ALWAYS sensational, and if you're a human being with emotion, you will be SWAYed even at the subconscious level, and ended up doing the WRONG trade, and that is EVEN after knowing that his blog is possibly filled with fraudulent "AI" information. At least, that's how it has affected me. And so that is also my advice to you. Quite often you end up missing the turn, and/or missing a big wave when you should have stayed invested, and that can easily cost more than a WEC ticket.

In fact, as bikefront stated, there is some "value" IF you take Socrates'/Armstrong's stuffs INVERSELY, taking the OPPOSITE trades. That is also my experience and observation, especially the MOST SENSATIONAL (the fat lady hasn't singed, etc.) posts from Armstrong amid a mini-panic.

Instead of choosing to do the inverse trades, I have just opted NOT to read his stuffs, so that I will NOT be emotionally influenced by Armstrong, who appears to be the world-class con artist. This is just my personal opinions, given all the presented evidences. Everyone can make up his or her own mind.

s29

jr. member

Activity: 184

Merit: 8

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/interest-rates-world-news/private-blog-the-interest-rate-nonsense/

PRIVATE BLOG – The Interest Rate Nonsense
Blog/Interest Rates
Posted Jun 22, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

Okay, what did Armstrong post here? He made a big bad call on interest rates, now he calls the whole dicussion nonsense? Cheesy

psp777

jr. member

Activity: 81

Merit: 6

Yes, a huge thank you to everyone for stepping up and being as honest as they have been with their success and failures. I have been more frustrated than ever with MA/ Socrates. I didn't dare fade Armstrong's calls...after all, former hedge fund manager and an AI computer system that has apparently called everything. I'm so disappointed I followed MA's blog comments. I literally have missed out on about $70,000 move based on what I was invested in with my core portfolio. I went to cash on January 19th...and waiting for the test of the December lows that never came. I literally wanted to stay invested, but his comments hinted at a pullback...Although I didn't lose money the missed opportunity stings just as badly.

Now do I buy the breakout and his channel move? Haha all indicators I have are saying way over bought...History shows after "Quad witching" we get a couple of days and then a large pullback, but then he posts a graph yesterday showing the energy is super low and likely we will burst higher. He didn't talk about the lower energy in the private blog on the most recent sell off. That would have been a great call when the energy hit zero on his chart on Jun 03 or so..that was about a 7.5% move on the SPX right there - sigh. We had elected a couple o bearish reversal I believe on the DOW too. Can't remember would have to load my charting platform for the specifics, but I hope you get the idea.

So, basically his blog comments have been a contrarian to what has happened. This was the case with gold a few years back when he posted something the like fat lady was singing and we would go under 1000 only reverse super fast - oh well. I'm on to more green pastures...but do find this thread extremely interesting and enjoy the commentary with like minded people!

nattybear

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: trulycoined on June 22, 2019, 02:16:09 PM

Great post!

I think the jury is out now on Socrates as a trading platform. It is at best unusable, at worst a total scam.

It seems MA plays the pied piper with his solid grasp of world economic history and socioeconomics, of which I think he does know his stuff better than most, but some of his claims are still difficult to fact check. The pi theory is REALLY interesting, but does not appear to forecast everything correctly either because it is a coincidence, or there are elements at play we don't know about/understand, or it is just very clever BS. However, that pulls the punters in and weakens their "defences". Then he upsells his snake oil, which is the Socrates trading platform/subs. This is why he has never let anyone peer review his model and will likely take it (the scam I mean) to the grave. He has done well out of it though.

Game, set and match. It's MA's beautifully executed retirement plan.

This here is MA's "Greatest Trade of the Century" PDF that I found via a quick google search. It costs $750 and was otherwise included as part of the 2018 WEC ticket. This is NOT my version, where we each had our order ID watermarked into the doc:
https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/The-Greatest-Trade-of-the-Century.pdf

It is a brilliant example of MA's content EPICS. Literally 98% (irrelevant) history, and 2% writing about what the document is supposed to be about. His writing angle is always dismissive and never directly addresses anything. Same with the answers to reader questions. He never directly answers the question, allowing him to cover his ass. It has actually got funny reading his blog where even recently, he always talks around the question rather than answering it.

One of his most recent posts is also interesting. MA is releasing a book! I might actually buy this just to see if there is ANYTHING redeemable in his "knowledge" as an educator:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/manipulating-the-world-economy-2/

If the book is tosh, and Jan 2020 is only significant for one thing: another £2,750 priced conference, then it has been a fun time reading him past few years. Fun attending the 2018 Orlando WEC and meeting his readership. Fun meeting MA and asking him a question to his face that had me even more miffed than he was. Fun further digging contrarian opinions of him. Fun finding this forum and contributing (hopefully) useful and impartial insight where I have never traded anything on MA/Socrates recommendations, went to the WEC already sceptical, and have no bad blood against the guy. But that will be it. I'll instead waste my time staring up at the sky.

He's an old man, who has some interesting theories. If he feels he is rumbled or sees subs/WEC uptake decline, I hazard guess we will hear of some "bad health" in the coming years, also made up, and he will disappear into the sunset with his millions never to be heard from again. But still considered a "legend" up there with Einstein for all those cultist followers that never worked him out... As they say, there is an idiot born every minute.

Absolutely - it's been an interesting ride and I genuinely looked to find ways on how to include Socrates as part of my trading system... Now with our experience and his staff feedback, it's very clear there's no way it can be used confidently.

trulycoined

jr. member

Activity: 85

Merit: 8

Quote from: nattybear on June 22, 2019, 01:25:03 PM

So something really unexpected happened yesterday.

I posted a couple of weeks back about how MA had not only missed the market runs from Dec/Jan and the most recent but that he was also bearish in his commentary immediately prior. The most recent run is more damning for him as he specifically called for a decline after the weekly bearish reversal was elected. Since then we're back near all-time highs and his most recent blog (yesterday) makes zero mention of his failure...

I try to be reasonable with most systems and ask for feedback on my interpretations because there are nuances and learning curves and often as a user I might see something which wasn't what was really communicated. So I went to them and asked how I should interpret how MA categorically failed in calling two incredible trading opportunities, why he doesn't clarify his position on them, and how Socrates in pumping out contradictory numbers (in the weekly vs daily reversals).

The initial email was just rebuffed with a one-liner - "always trade the numbers - MA will have a blog shortly on this".

I went back more aggressively pointing out that people are paying for a service and deserve more than lazy hand off. I pointed to the fact there are two different sets of numbers that point to two very different directional trades - so which is accurate?

In their next response (I debated on whether I should share this in full but feel that the main points are enough):

Firstly, after the standard 'trade the numbers' reminder there was a follow-up comment which surprised me. "Do not trade the verbiage or what someone says..." Wait a second, did MA/Socrates own team just tell me to not trade MA's commentary? Strange, because this is the guy who has access to the best forecasting platform known to man, and he's always correct, but I'm told to NOT TRADE THE COMMENTARY... Why is his commentary valuable then?

Apparently, even his team know that he's full of BS and that you shouldn't trade based on his blogs... So that answers Question #1: Is MA able to personally forecast accurately and share that honestly with other investors. Answer: Evidently not - even his own team's advice is to not trade on it.

Secondly, the person went on to blame me for 'investing emotionally' and not putting on a stop... To paraphrase - you messed this up so it's your fault. Well, that's an incorrect accusation because I hadn't mentioned how I had traded. After seeing what happened in Dec - I've taken very lightly anything that came from MA. Post the weekly reversal being hit I had traded both long and short for different time periods...

It's disappointing that people who followed MA's commentary and Socrates reversals are not given an explanation of what happened and why they have lost money from that... Instead, they are accused of messing it up because of emotions and poor trade management. Answer for Question #2: Does MA and Socrates ever get it wrong? Answer: Yes, we've got countless examples of that but don't count on MA/Socrates to admit it. Rather it's the users who f*#k things up by following the commentary/data. It's much easier to blame the investor who's using your system... World class service...

Lastly, the email suggested that we took out a bullish reversal (at 25,885) which was the short stop point (a 1,000+pt stop - you wouldn't be trading for long with that type of system) and it's possible that we may have very well peaked yesterday and that I should go and read MA's latest blog on it... Hang on, I was just told not trade based on his commentary and apparently Socrates reversals/arrays aren't accurate soooo... Help me understand why I should form an opinion based on these factors that the market has topped??? Heaven help me, the idiocy is killing me...

TL:DR - 1) MA's own team don't believe his commentary and suggest users shouldn't trade from it. 2) Socrates doesn't accurately forecast and the users are the idiots for screwing up trades by following it.

Case is unequivocally closed... This is a sham run by a con.

Great post!

I think the jury is out now on Socrates as a trading platform. It is at best unusable, at worst a total scam.

It seems MA plays the pied piper with his solid grasp of world economic history and socioeconomics, of which I think he does know his stuff better than most, but some of his claims are still difficult to fact check. The pi theory is REALLY interesting, but does not appear to forecast everything correctly either because it is a coincidence, or there are elements at play we don't know about/understand, or it is just very clever BS. However, that pulls the punters in and weakens their "defences". Then he upsells his snake oil, which is the Socrates trading platform/subs. This is why he has never let anyone peer review his model and will likely take it (the scam I mean) to the grave. He has done well out of it though.

Game, set and match. It's MA's beautifully executed retirement plan.

This here is MA's "Greatest Trade of the Century" PDF that I found via a quick google search. It costs $750 and was otherwise included as part of the 2018 WEC ticket. This is NOT my version, where we each had our order ID watermarked into the doc:
https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/The-Greatest-Trade-of-the-Century.pdf

It is a brilliant example of MA's content EPICS. Literally 98% (irrelevant) history, and 2% writing about what the document is supposed to be about. His writing angle is always dismissive and never directly addresses anything. Same with the answers to reader questions. He never directly answers the question, allowing him to cover his ass. It has actually got funny reading his blog where even recently, he always talks around the question rather than answering it.

One of his most recent posts is also interesting. MA is releasing a book! I might actually buy this just to see if there is ANYTHING redeemable in his "knowledge" as an educator:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/manipulating-the-world-economy-2/

If the book is tosh, and Jan 2020 is only significant for one thing: another £2,750 priced conference, then it has been a fun time reading him past few years. Fun attending the 2018 Orlando WEC and meeting his readership. Fun meeting MA and asking him a question to his face that had me even more miffed than he was. Fun further digging contrarian opinions of him. Fun finding this forum and contributing (hopefully) useful and impartial insight where I have never traded anything on MA/Socrates recommendations, went to the WEC already sceptical, and have no bad blood against the guy. But that will be it. I'll instead waste my time staring up at the sky.

He's an old man, who has some interesting theories. If he feels he is rumbled or sees subs/WEC uptake decline, I hazard guess we will hear of some "bad health" in the coming years, also made up, and he will disappear into the sunset with his millions never to be heard from again. But still considered a "legend" up there with Einstein for all those cultist followers that never worked him out... As they say, there is an idiot born every minute.

nattybear

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

So something really unexpected happened yesterday.

I posted a couple of weeks back about how MA had not only missed the market runs from Dec/Jan and the most recent but that he was also bearish in his commentary immediately prior. The most recent run is more damning for him as he specifically called for a decline after the weekly bearish reversal was elected. Since then we're back near all-time highs and his most recent blog (yesterday) makes zero mention of his failure...

I try to be reasonable with most systems and ask for feedback on my interpretations because there are nuances and learning curves and often as a user I might see something which wasn't what was really communicated. So I went to them and asked how I should interpret how MA categorically failed in calling two incredible trading opportunities, why he doesn't clarify his position on them, and how Socrates in pumping out contradictory numbers (in the weekly vs daily reversals).

The initial email was just rebuffed with a one-liner - "always trade the numbers - MA will have a blog shortly on this".

I went back more aggressively pointing out that people are paying for a service and deserve more than lazy hand off. I pointed to the fact there are two different sets of numbers that point to two very different directional trades - so which is accurate?

In their next response (I debated on whether I should share this in full but feel that the main points are enough):

Firstly, after the standard 'trade the numbers' reminder there was a follow-up comment which surprised me. "Do not trade the verbiage or what someone says..." Wait a second, did MA/Socrates own team just tell me to not trade MA's commentary? Strange, because this is the guy who has access to the best forecasting platform known to man, and he's always correct, but I'm told to NOT TRADE THE COMMENTARY... Why is his commentary valuable then?

Apparently, even his team know that he's full of BS and that you shouldn't trade based on his blogs... So that answers Question #1: Is MA able to personally forecast accurately and share that honestly with other investors. Answer: Evidently not - even his own team's advice is to not trade on it.

Secondly, the person went on to blame me for 'investing emotionally' and not putting on a stop... To paraphrase - you messed this up so it's your fault. Well, that's an incorrect accusation because I hadn't mentioned how I had traded. After seeing what happened in Dec - I've taken very lightly anything that came from MA. Post the weekly reversal being hit I had traded both long and short for different time periods...

It's disappointing that people who followed MA's commentary and Socrates reversals are not given an explanation of what happened and why they have lost money from that... Instead, they are accused of messing it up because of emotions and poor trade management. Answer for Question #2: Does MA and Socrates ever get it wrong? Answer: Yes, we've got countless examples of that but don't count on MA/Socrates to admit it. Rather it's the users who f*#k things up by following the commentary/data. It's much easier to blame the investor who's using your system... World class service...

Lastly, the email suggested that we took out a bullish reversal (at 25,885) which was the short stop point (a 1,000+pt stop - you wouldn't be trading for long with that type of system) and it's possible that we may have very well peaked yesterday and that I should go and read MA's latest blog on it... Hang on, I was just told not trade based on his commentary and apparently Socrates reversals/arrays aren't accurate soooo... Help me understand why I should form an opinion based on these factors that the market has topped??? Heaven help me, the idiocy is killing me...

TL:DR - 1) MA's own team don't believe his commentary and suggest users shouldn't trade from it. 2) Socrates doesn't accurately forecast and the users are the idiots for screwing up trades by following it.

Case is unequivocally closed... This is a sham run by a con.

Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 112. (Read 647176 times)