Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 81. (Read 647176 times)

Sounds we're facing total annihilation as a human kind but thank God Marty has a solution: his computer

Correlations

In one of his latest alarmist posts ,

Martin Armstrong praises his computer as usual for being able to sort out the correlations.

In one of his recent reports that carry a very high price tag, he made use of such a correlation as demonstrated here: The Martin Armstrong Gold / Silver Ratio Fallacy which indicates that such correlation may not hold for the future for long, only in hindsight.

And his results show that there is no value in correlating markets in the way that he does it.

And there is no evidence ANYWHERE in his writings that he used correlation between markets successfully to provide better forecasting.

For those who are interested in correlations between markets, this has been studied for years, see
Stock correlation network.

Correlation queries have been available as various online computer services like here at aistockcharts.com
and here . Correlation studies are standard part of broker services today.

Until this day, Martin Armstrong's so called correlation models have been unavailable. At best, single studies have been manual executions not reaching the level of complexity as seen elsewhere. Socrates still presents a flat earth model where each market is analyzed in isolation, merely based on its own time series, not correlated with anything.

Martin Armstrong planned in 2013 to build the Global Correlation Model.

Here in 2014, it becomes obvious that this, while still not available, aims to be no more than expressing technical analysis of markets in terms of various currencies.




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

There is no way to predict future of weather, economics, the universe.

And that is good


Selling such, is red flag, close to scam

Here he goes again:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/interest-rates/trump-on-interest-rates-omg/




1) 13th year of economic recession in Europe? Armstrong is outright lying here.
2) The relative sluggish European economic recovery has not much to do with that lower rates or that QE didn't work; but rather with demographics, bad loans on bank's balance sheets and the relative high amount of socialism in Europe. Also we don't know what the economic numbers would be without lower rates or without QE (probably a lot worse or even a depression).
3) Comparing European share markets from the 2000-bubble top is ridiculous in itself, but even more ridiculous without taking into account dividends. The DAX with dividend topped around 8000 points in the year 2000 and is now above 12000 points. Not too shabby since Armstrong says Europe has been in a recession for 13 years straight. Also we don't know what the DAX would be without lower rates or without QE (probably a lot lower).

Armstrong is just outright lying, or not telling the full story. But if it's about Europe, he can only bash it seems.

Marty also seems to be a total drama queen being on a period when it comes to taxation. Corporate and top income rates in general have been declining for decades around the world.

I'd rather say that your posts are meaningless

unproved nonsense.  IMHO 95% or most likely more are published in advance.

It was always said that short term trading exclusively on blog post is not the best idea. It needs to be closely monitored with the latest Socrates data.

MA always said that Socrates is not 100%. You just need to always consider that you may loose a few trades.

but he doesn't do it. Most of the time he comments on Metals , the Dow and the EURUSD
Often he would write something  after big move, and this can also have it's meaning because investors may want to know how far the move can go.

These ramblings are meaningless as has been shown in this forum many times before. He reports elected reversals in hindsight. An elected reversal as he reports cannot not necessarily be traded because many reversals are reported late (phantom reversals) after the close, in hindsight. Then ask yourself what happens AFTER the election? Bad trade? In this case, the Gold market bounced by more than $20, so they could all be bad. Again, the number 3 does not mean anything either, because reversals could be bunched as double and triple reversals, or generally reversals very close together, all elected at the same time. Can you figure out whether he was wrong or right? No? What is the point then?

So if he is wrong here or not, that does not even matter. Meanwhile, what about all the bad reversals, about failure to elect reversals in markets that had significant moves? What Martin Armstrong writes is all pointless because out of 1,000 markets covered by Socrates, he will definitely, always be able to pick the ones that look best to him and brag about them - in hindsight. He will NEVER ADVISE to trade a specific market based on an elected reversal because that would expose him to the random mess that Socrates is.


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

Seems like Marty is reading this forum :


Maybe he's right this time, since Gold seems to be early in a further correction.

My opinion, it's a small liar piggyback riding on a big liar.  And of course the big liar constantly wants to make sure that money goes to him, instead of going to other small liars.

One of things that's kind of revealing is what Nick said here:

First of all.  Socrates AI is a piece of computer software, AND software/math goes by numbers.  There should NEVER be any need to "interpret" it.  The fact that we are all here, constantly interpreting Socrates output is just weird and wrong, since the software would just require adding some lines of codes and conclude using its database & AI to tell you whether it is a BUY or SELL.

Then Armstrong comes in here to play out the salient point of his "Art of Lies".    Armstrong as the "second" person, interprets "Socrates" who is the "first" person.  So guess what, whenever Armstrong gets it wrong, he just needs to say that it was his human "guess" that went beyond Socrates.  So zero point for Armstrong, and one point for Socrates.  And whenever Armstrong gets it right, then one point for Armstrong, and one point for Socrates.

THEN when the subscribers come in, the salient point of lying becomes fractalized, and if the subscriber get the market right, that's one point for subscriber, one point for Armstrong, and one point for Socrates.  If the subscriber gets the market wrong, that's zero point for subscriber, still one point for Armstrong and Socrates.

So Socrates is never wrong.  Armstrong is only wrong when he gets ahead of himself.  And subscribers, based on the randomness, some will simply flourish based on pure luck, some will survive, but ALL will continue to confirm that Socrates/Armstrong are right with positive bias.


So is Socrates actually Armstrong?

My parents used to tell me that if my friend tries to borrow money from me, just tell them that your parents (or now your wife) don't allow it.  The parents are NOT there, and the friend cannot ask the absent person any questions.

My buyer's real estate agent tells me that even if you like the house, tell the seller that your wife doesn't like it for better price negotiation.  The wife is NOT there, and the seller cannot ask the absent person any questions.

In the WEC presentation, Armstrong has ANOTHER guy presents the "methodologies".  Armstrong is NOT there.  You cannot ask him questions.  If the guy cannot answer, it is not Armstrong's problem.

In most of the blog posts, Armstrong is the voice, and "Socrates is NOT there".  What does the "computer" think?  You cannot ask a question to someone that is NOT there.

You cannot lay a blame on an absent person.

If anything, everyone else is stupid and trash, but Socrates is always right, don't you get it (shouted out by Armstrong, not me)?

But shall you buy or sell today for making a profit?  Well, you can't even ask that simplest question to Socrates.

Who is committing this fraud?

Yes, Armstrong also ramps up the posting on his Private Blog when the market made a huge move. Never before the move of course. Maybe that sells extra subscriptions when traders are emotional.

His calls on Bitcoin and Gold have been horrendous, especially those year-end closings and "what it means". Gold has been in a bottoming process for years, but still all these posts about gold going below 1000 bucks. The Dow also elected a bearish reversal on the last trading day of 2018; also didn't work out well at all.

I think this response is appropriate. It is commonsense to be considerate, as simple as that. With considerate, I mean to be respectful of the need of others to verify what I say. For example, I posted a trade here which is now verifiable because it has been quoted here , and therefore I cannot modify this without being caught.

In olegrey's case, the reversals would need to be posted in advance at a minimum, and it would need to be clear whether they are daily or weekly. I cannot see that, so the quality of what olegrey is doing is exactly zero. I don't know why he is doing it. We know that many reversals are phantom reversals which Socrates creates after the fact. This has never been challenged successfully, and now olegrey is exposing himself to this hat trick. Wash, rinse and repeat.

And let's not forget that olegrey has built his strategy based on the data posted here by bikefront in tabular form , so we are not requesting something that has not been shown to him before.



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

Somehow, it's hard to make Alex to understand that "Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence".  About 99% of the hedge fund managers cannot beat the market over long term.  Anyone making such claim on outstanding performance requires to provide extraordinary evidence.  Anyone claiming that just because he did "AI" or he runs his stuffs on "super-computer", and that it will be perfectly observing world capital, without any documented proof, is obviously non-sense.

That's a good catch.  I have noticed that if you take Armstrong's post as a counter-indicator, it actually kind of works.  Armstrong is mostly WRONG at the turn of the market, when the market is at the most emotional moment.  He loves to trash-talk everyone else, and shows that he is a genius by hindsight.

That was how he called "The End of Crytocurrency" at the end of last year.

I haven't dared to trade against Armstrong, the self-proclaimed genius trader, but trading against him on bitcoin would have netted you more than double of the return easily, catching almost right at the bottom.

And these two examples of his terrible bad calls are not the only ones, but just two documented ones here.

Alex, anyone has the right to have any opinion they want but if I come out and tell everyone that I believe aliens have visited earth, but when asked for proof I tell everyone I don't need to provide proof or tell them to find their own proof then I shouldn't be the least bit surprised that I may be ridiculed for holding that opinion.




I was going to ask the same thing, olegrey the trades should be in tab form so you can see when the call was made, what reversal, what was bought/sold, price paid, etc.  People want the ability to go back through the posts and verify the findings using the time stamps (ie you can't go back and edit posts after the fact).  Then at the end you can provide a summary like you have been to show the total results it achieved to date.

olegrey, I suggest you restart all of your counts from zero, and post your trades in real-time.  On this page 317, you go from successful reversal 5 to 8, without posting ANY real-time trades.

Honestly, I can't recall most of your past posted real-time trades either.

If I make a claim about my magic formula combining moving average and MACD indicators, and simply post like you with some success & failure, but averaging out to be some good stuffs, NOBODY can tell whether I'm faking it or not, even when it is HINDSIGHT based.

I'm not accusing you of anything.  But if the formula works, it will continue to work.  I just want to see some 100% clean record.

And if you refuse to do that, it's fine.  But that number is just good for you (or anyone else who wants to take it up by faith).

Great post

I had another recent one: his bearish calls on saturday 24 August, just between the Trump Trade Tweet on Friday and the futures at lows on the Monday after that.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/china/china-v-us-trade-war/




Why does he tweets bearish things after already such a huge decline, while if he's such a pro, he must know that these are setups for huge (counter)rally's, and he's confusing traders with comments like that (probably lots of Armstrong-blog readers sold on that Monday or gone short, and/or didn't buy anything for this huge rally). Whether his prediction still comes to fruition before February 2020 or not, Marty always seems to be a complete idiot on short time timing.

Hi all, been really busy again so I have a few updates.  On 8/30 I didn't notice that the Dow actually elected a bullish reversal.  I bought a position on Monday, but will calculate the percentage as if I had bought on Friday.  The Dow also elected a bullish reversal on 09/05 and 09/06.  I bought DIA for all these elections.  The sell date was today 9/9 because the Dow closed lower than it opened and was still true (I made sure to check that it didn't elect any reversals this time 😋).

Total successful reversal: 8
Total failed reversals: 3
Total gain: 14.10%
Total loss: 5.58%
Total profit: 8.52%

no, it's not exclusively about that. It's what you and a few other people have made out of this thread.
This thread is also for people  who believe to already know that Socrates works. Just leave them their opinion.
It is also possible to discuss small aspects of a topic without constantly taking the whole thing into question.

Alex-11, if you refuse to prove, then why are you here making noise at this forum?  If you're making noise here without showing anything, it only makes people suspect that you are in good company with Armstrong.  This forum is about discussing what methods using Armstrong's stuffs really work.  How are you going to show it without providing proof?

Oh, I forgot.  Maybe you are another self-proclaimed "trading god" that never have any losses ever in their lifetime, just like Armstrong's perfect trading record, and no proof is ever needed, because Armstrong has his super-computer AI (like he "claims"), and that just makes him right, since Google has shown AI can beat human at the game Go, and that's the proof that Armstrong requires to show that his AI works, I bet.



Bikefront has a good point on the leverage and drawn down.  For example, if a successful trade from opening to closing had a maximum temporary loss of 20%, even when at the closing it was winning 30%, this particular trade canNOT be leveraged for more than 5X, because 20% x 5 = 100%, and brokerage house will liquidate your entire account when that happens.  So under this scenario, the "profitable" trade that gave you 30% gain on paper, is really 100% loss in reality.

In fact, I believe that brokerage house will liquidate your position way before reaching 20% * 5X = 100% loss.

I know, it's terrible. I simply refuse to prove.