Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 72.

DanB1

jr. member

Activity: 100

Merit: 1

Quote from: Gumbi on November 13, 2019, 07:09:02 AM

@s29

funny but we didn't elect a yearly bearish reversal on the S&P 500 at the end of 2018. Armstrong never said no new highs only no new highs on a sustainable basis and the rally we are in currently in is not sustainable according to the energy model on the monthly level as well.

Armstrong is calling for quite a significant pullback going into 2021 if we do in fact make a high in January 2020 in line with the ECM.

Gumbi, read the 2018 end of year report. It was so bearish (on the DOW). 11 months later and we are 18% higher...
You completely missed the rally. I started the year very short but gladly I recognized MA is a clown and I bought US Treasury and bond procies early in the year.
Martin Armstrong has no clue, he is a complete amateur.

s29

jr. member

Activity: 184

Merit: 8

Quote from: Gumbi on November 13, 2019, 07:09:02 AM

@s29

funny but we didn't elect a yearly bearish reversal on the S&P 500 at the end of 2018. Armstrong never said no new highs only no new highs on a sustainable basis and the rally we are in currently in is not sustainable according to the energy model on the monthly level as well.

Armstrong is calling for quite a significant pullback going into 2021 if we do in fact make a high in January 2020 in line with the ECM.

You're right! I meant the Dow Jones of course. It was rather late in Europe Wink

But the meme still captures it by and large Cheesy

Let's see, it can still happen.

Gumbi

copper member

Activity: 168

Merit: 0

@s29

funny but we didn't elect a yearly bearish reversal on the S&P 500 at the end of 2018. Armstrong never said no new highs only no new highs on a sustainable basis and the rally we are in currently in is not sustainable according to the energy model on the monthly level as well.

Armstrong is calling for quite a significant pullback going into 2021 if we do in fact make a high in January 2020 in line with the ECM.

s29

jr. member

Activity: 184

Merit: 8

Quote from: dow_wizard on November 07, 2019, 12:50:22 PM

Thank you for exposing MA.

I read MA's blog for almost 10 years and was one of early subscribers to Socrates. I canceled my subscription earlier this year because of terrible trading results.

Martin Armstrong is a fraud and you will lose money following his advice.

Armstrong's 2019 in a nutshell:

Alex-11

newbie

Activity: 133

Merit: 0

before it was mostly impossible to identify turning points via the aggregate row. They were jumping back and forth or were "locked" to a certain column. The other rows were fine.
The aggregate row is now also working as expected.

etoimene

newbie

Activity: 64

Merit: 0

Quote from: Alex-11 on November 11, 2019, 01:51:21 PM

but the arrays have been fixed lately.

What exactly has been fixed?

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

Quote from: Alex-11 on November 11, 2019, 01:51:21 PM

Well, that's wrong. The text is still there, but the arrays have been fixed lately.

After years of being online, Socrates numbers still don't add up:

You may experience delays and discrepancies

That is the original text as of today - nothing as changed.

And Gumbi and Alex11, you are still making claims about the accuracy of this system back in June?

Don't be surprised if you are ridiculed. Kiss

You better get a computer programmer to fix Socrates before you raise your heads here.

Nobody is interested in your meaningless talk. Did you not notice?

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.

Alex-11

newbie

Activity: 133

Merit: 0

Quote from: AnonymousCoder on November 11, 2019, 01:41:49 PM

- nothing as changed.

Well, regarding Socrates features that's wrong. The text is still there, but the arrays have been fixed lately.

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

After years of being online, Socrates numbers still don't add up:

You may experience delays and discrepancies

That is the original text as of today - nothing as changed.

And Gumbi and Alex11, you are still making claims about the accuracy of this system back in June?

Don't be surprised if you are ridiculed.

You better get a computer programmer to fix Socrates before you raise your heads here.

Nobody is interested in your meaningless talk. Did you not notice?

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.

Gumbi

copper member

Activity: 168

Merit: 0

Quote from: DanB1 on November 11, 2019, 03:52:03 AM

Quote from: Alex-11 on November 09, 2019, 08:11:14 AM

Quote from: AnonymousCoder on November 09, 2019, 02:14:44 AM

... discredited

This rather applies to AnonymousCoder (or hater). He has been thoroughly discredited in his previous blog posts about the rise of Gold in June/July 2019 time frame where he completely missed the Socrates Indicators which have correctly predicted the rise of Gold during that uptrend.
Furthermore, the "sceptics" here in this forum keep ignoring that it's "stupid" (in the words of Armstrong) to to trade short to mid term , solely on MA's private blog posts.

Alex; Talking about Gold, what about MA's 1% rule?
The so called bullish monthly reversal was elected by more than 2%, Gold went straight up but we have never seen it return to the reversal (1362.5) in the 3 months after the election.

In June Gold elected its monthly bullish at 1362 and 4 others the last at 1392.7 which it tested in July/

s29

jr. member

Activity: 184

Merit: 8

Quote from: Alex-11 on November 09, 2019, 07:38:22 PM

Quote from: s29 on November 09, 2019, 12:41:49 PM

What a nonsense.

well, you've started first Wink

"What a nonsense" was just an introduction to a larger answer where I explain why what you stated is nonsense. Instead you just post pointless oneliners to take cheap jabs at people here.

Alex-11

newbie

Activity: 133

Merit: 0

Quote from: AnonymousCoder on November 11, 2019, 08:40:18 AM

The discussion is dead.

yes boss.
sure boss!
Roll Eyes

AnonymousCoder

member

Activity: 580

Merit: 17

The 1% rule is just an excuse for the fact that Socrates period end is rarely aligned with the actual wave of the market. So when you have some volatility that is actually worth trading, then the reversal system just gets in the way. The system is so rigid and stupid!

At the end of the day, the user is the system and there is no way that one cold build a robot that trades based on this Socrates contraption. That alone is the proof that there is no value in it.

Armstrong supporters are discussing these things as if they were some kind of science. Ridiculous. These rules are just gimmicks. Try to trade based on it a hundred times. You will be broke whether you follow the rules strictly or not. Because there is no accuracy in the rules. Nobody here has been able to prove that it works. The majority of people confirm that it doesn't work. The discussion is dead.

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.
.

Alex-11

newbie

Activity: 133

Merit: 0

Quote from: DanB1 on November 11, 2019, 03:52:03 AM

Alex; Talking about Gold, what about MA's 1% rule?
The so called bullish monthly reversal was elected by more than 2%, Gold went straight up but we have never seen it return to the reversal (1362.5) in the 3 months after the election.

I haven't verified the 1% rule, so I can't comment on the validity of it.
In general , my understanding is that there is nothing in Socrates that is always 100%. You have to factor in that things are not always going in accordance with the handbook. Trades can go wrong and that's why one still needs a stop-loss. However, for a 1% rule to make sense, of course there needs to be a certain reliability in that rule.
To estimate whether the 1% rule might apply in a certain situation, the Array and the reversals that come next should also influence the chances of a 1% pull back. E.g. if there is a large reversals gab after the elected reversal and/or no weekly / daily reversals are there, then the chances are higher that there won't be a pull-back because of the lack of resistance.
As I said, I've not verified the 1% rule, but I think this could give you an idea when there might be no pull-back.

DanB1

jr. member

Activity: 100

Merit: 1

Quote from: Alex-11 on November 09, 2019, 08:11:14 AM

Quote from: AnonymousCoder on November 09, 2019, 02:14:44 AM

... discredited

This rather applies to AnonymousCoder (or hater). He has been thoroughly discredited in his previous blog posts about the rise of Gold in June/July 2019 time frame where he completely missed the Socrates Indicators which have correctly predicted the rise of Gold during that uptrend.
Furthermore, the "sceptics" here in this forum keep ignoring that it's "stupid" (in the words of Armstrong) to to trade short to mid term , solely on MA's private blog posts.

Alex; Talking about Gold, what about MA's 1% rule?
The so called bullish monthly reversal was elected by more than 2%, Gold went straight up but we have never seen it return to the reversal (1362.5) in the 3 months after the election.

dow_wizard

newbie

Activity: 16

Merit: 1

Martin Armstrong and Socrates are fraud. Martin Armstrong will steal your money.

dibley8899

jr. member

Activity: 80

Merit: 1

is Alex's IP address in Florida lol?

Back to Marty and hes worth Billions you know but he really wants your US$15 even though he wants to save the world. As for the worldwide offices these will just be people on commission for collecting payments in the Middle East usually.

Regarding climate change you could probably watch it on youtube Adapt2030 before Marty has time to post it.

The turning point on the ECM is this coming January which is a low? yet stocks are supposed to put in a high? hmmmmmm

Alex-11

newbie

Activity: 133

Merit: 0