So many words.....
your post has so many good arguments 
Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 82. (Read 647176 times)
So many words without saying anything of substance ... except they reveal so much about the writer ...
As I wrote before, Alex-11 should work for Martin Armstrong so he would be in good company.
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
As I wrote before, Alex-11 should work for Martin Armstrong so he would be in good company.
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
You are referring to profitability. That isn't the point. I was addressing Armstrong's claims. It isn't close to 100% accurate. The stops he advocates are wide. In other words, his strategy cannot be used with a large amount of leverage, and the losses are huge. Merely being profitable isn't the same as claiming some kind of amazing record.
There is a wide field between "large amount of leverage" and "merely profitable" :-) . I guess trading well with the former is anyways hard to find. Remember that Socrates is "only" a data provider (SaaS) where there can exist many trading strategies.. Invent your own strategy with it ;-) . Socrates may also only support other strategies you may have already.Textual generation can be done via even basic smartphone apps.
What I know is that big data often times need big servers. We can speculate all day about this, but at the end all that counts are the results. If there was a summary of what the computer is actually doing and why a super computer is needed for that, then I could have a look at it and judge it because I have some experience in the field of data processing. But I don't have the time and don't see the need to search through all the blog posts for this information. If he was not forecasting so many instruments, then it means he was not actually tracking all capital flows and therefore Socrates was missing pieces of the puzzle and therefore it was inaccurate.
to forecast the the S&P 500 it is not required to forecast all the 500 stocks individually, but from my understanding it is a new thing that Socrates is also now forecasting stocks. At the moment Socrates forecasting more then 1000 trading instruments. I don't think he had so much before.Actually, I do think that the analysis text does need a lot of processing power. This is not only about producing the text itself, but the data has to be prepared and all checks need to be done beforehand of the text generation. This preparation of the data is what needs a lot of processing power. There must be a lot of building blocks that can potentially be put together.
I think this complexity was the main reason why it took so many years to develop Socrates and release it. But as I said, I don't really care much about this point. Results count...
If someone is making a claim about something, then burden of evidence is upon the one making the claim. There was no evidence of his claims. If you wish to provide evidence, please do so with live trades calls based on closing prices or calls ahead of time using Armstrong's forecasting method.
under normal circumstances I'd agree, but Socrates is everything but normal.
Also, vendors rarely prove anything. They make claims, even the good company's. It's up to a third party to review and rate the product or system. From product manufacturer you can rarely expect anything objective. They do their marketing, as all do.
As I said, I will only make live trades if I want to, not if someone is demanding from me to do it. Unless this person is paying really well
If someone is making a claim about something, then burden of evidence is upon the one making the claim.
Well said!
because it isn't close to the fabled 100% winrate,
75% win rate is enough or even much less. It all depends on the strategy (e.g. many small losses and a few large wins)Did it not occur to someone that if Armstrong claims to use a high amount of computing power in order to use Socrates accurately with recent supercomputers, it implies that he had been unable to do so before and therefore Socrates must have been inaccurate in the years before? And what of his data providers? And how would they have been giving him live data then? There are so many other holes in the story.
Back then, MA's computer didn't forecast so many instruments and there wasn't any fancy stuff build around it (analysis text, web hosting)
I'm not sure if I understand the problem with the data provider. Why should he not have received live data? Yes , he had some issue with banks, but he could have got live data (or near live) from anywhere in the world.
MA is back to his usual hysterics > WEC > crescendo > nothing happens antics. All in the name of using known psychological tactics to sell something to an unsuspecting audience.
I have noticed an increase in content focussed on Asia/Far East in recent weeks, where he subtly drops lines about his "clients" out there, and how many are/used to seek his "expertise".
See: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Which is beginning to confirm my "prediction" from earlier this year that the next WEC will be Jan 2020 and in either Europe or the Far East (Singapore). It looks like it will be in the Far East as MA is posting content in higher volumes and hysterics, with a crescendo that never quite reaches its peak into December... And then never comes to pass when his prophesied "day of Armageddon" turns into nothing this Jan (2020.05). His Asian audience are then left with another blog post soon after 2020.05, which will find ANYTHING around the date of this next ECM call and pin that one event on the ECM date, reminding his audience about how great his "AI supercomputer" is.
Also interesting that he still quotes his famous "Big Bang" call of 2015.75... And it has now been extended out to 2022!:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/lebanon-declares-state-of-economic-emergency
Despite always reminding his audience that the ECM forecasts "to the day":
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/ecm-armstrongeconomics101/welcome-to-the-pi-target-day-2018-89/
Well, not in 2015, clearly.
And by stating 2022, presumably that means Jan 1 2022?
He has just extended his prophetic doom call by 6.5 years. A very wide margin of error that allows MA to then shriek "I told you so!" - and then sell even more WEC's.
MA has this act down to a fine art.
I have noticed an increase in content focussed on Asia/Far East in recent weeks, where he subtly drops lines about his "clients" out there, and how many are/used to seek his "expertise".
See: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Which is beginning to confirm my "prediction" from earlier this year that the next WEC will be Jan 2020 and in either Europe or the Far East (Singapore). It looks like it will be in the Far East as MA is posting content in higher volumes and hysterics, with a crescendo that never quite reaches its peak into December... And then never comes to pass when his prophesied "day of Armageddon" turns into nothing this Jan (2020.05). His Asian audience are then left with another blog post soon after 2020.05, which will find ANYTHING around the date of this next ECM call and pin that one event on the ECM date, reminding his audience about how great his "AI supercomputer" is.
Also interesting that he still quotes his famous "Big Bang" call of 2015.75... And it has now been extended out to 2022!:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/lebanon-declares-state-of-economic-emergency
Despite always reminding his audience that the ECM forecasts "to the day":
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/ecm-armstrongeconomics101/welcome-to-the-pi-target-day-2018-89/
Well, not in 2015, clearly.
And by stating 2022, presumably that means Jan 1 2022?
He has just extended his prophetic doom call by 6.5 years. A very wide margin of error that allows MA to then shriek "I told you so!" - and then sell even more WEC's.
MA has this act down to a fine art.
Alex-11, on pg. 315, you said:
Quote
When you say "not work equally good", that is a human filtering of your own, meaning a confirmation bias......
The human brain in it self is a filtering instrument that is filtering all of the time the whole day.
Everybody can see that what I was saying was just speculation, but you are trying to make something negative out of it with hollow words and nothing behind it. If anything, then you are trying to confirm your own bias.
Alex-11, on pg. 315, you said:
When you say "not work equally good", that is a human filtering of your own, meaning a confirmation bias.
We have already found out that Armstrong's arrays do NOT work, as stated by bikefront, based from prior Feb & July Armstrong's "panic" months on this forum.
ANY viable trading strategy would have its own success percentage from the back-testing, etc. But you won't find ANY such information from Armstrong. He doesn't tell you when it works, or when it works well. He lets you figure it out, so that you can APPLY your human filtering and confirmation bias, and say WOW, it does work beautifully in this case, but in many other cases, it outright FAILS.
So if you cannot figure out BEFOREHAND, which case it (array or reversal) will work beautifully, how in the world can you make a profitable trade?
That is Armstrong's fallacy. He plays with your mind and subscription money, and he doesn't really care whether you make money or not. Randomly, there will be always subscribers who make money and lose money. As long as he can continue to get enough web traffics to get 0.2% of the new people paying, his business is striving, and he can continue to impress the scientific illiterates about perpetual motion machines that self-generates energy, or super-computer that uses almost 100% of annual energy SOLELY for his own use of Socrates. Lies that all come too easily to such a person like Armstrong, but it matters not a bit to Armstrong.
Quote
Sometimes I think that it is possible that arrays do not work equally good on all instruments. That doesn't make it any easier, but MA said this about reversals and I think this could also be the case with arrays. Although, MA never said that about arrays. It's just something that went through my mind when I saw this (kind of exotic) Gold/Silver ratio array. I've zero experience with the ratio, in general. I say exotic because I've not seen it very often in MA's blog posts.
When you say "not work equally good", that is a human filtering of your own, meaning a confirmation bias.
We have already found out that Armstrong's arrays do NOT work, as stated by bikefront, based from prior Feb & July Armstrong's "panic" months on this forum.
ANY viable trading strategy would have its own success percentage from the back-testing, etc. But you won't find ANY such information from Armstrong. He doesn't tell you when it works, or when it works well. He lets you figure it out, so that you can APPLY your human filtering and confirmation bias, and say WOW, it does work beautifully in this case, but in many other cases, it outright FAILS.
So if you cannot figure out BEFOREHAND, which case it (array or reversal) will work beautifully, how in the world can you make a profitable trade?
That is Armstrong's fallacy. He plays with your mind and subscription money, and he doesn't really care whether you make money or not. Randomly, there will be always subscribers who make money and lose money. As long as he can continue to get enough web traffics to get 0.2% of the new people paying, his business is striving, and he can continue to impress the scientific illiterates about perpetual motion machines that self-generates energy, or super-computer that uses almost 100% of annual energy SOLELY for his own use of Socrates. Lies that all come too easily to such a person like Armstrong, but it matters not a bit to Armstrong.
It's great that this board is getting more objective now. But for the people posting their tests, as a reminder, the trades MUST be posted in real-time, and should use daily closing prices for both their entry & exit. Otherwise, it would be viewed as invalid.
It's apparent that even if those trades are netting positive, the success rate is not high like 85+% or close to it.
Regardless, any strategies should be tested through all kinds of markets. The recent market has been range-bounded with clearly well-defined support/resistance. Any viable strategies must be tested for at least range-bounded, upward, downward markets to have any merits. But of course, if a strategy cannot even survive one type of market, it should be disqualified already.
The professional traders back-test their strategies for decades, if not hundreds of years.
With Martin Armstrong's "super-computer", it should be truly a piece of cake for him to publish such "success" rate from back-testing, AND sell such strategies to any hedge funds. I wonder whether he is not doing that. Maybe his fake statistics canNOT pass the screening by any professional hedge fund traders?
It's apparent that even if those trades are netting positive, the success rate is not high like 85+% or close to it.
Regardless, any strategies should be tested through all kinds of markets. The recent market has been range-bounded with clearly well-defined support/resistance. Any viable strategies must be tested for at least range-bounded, upward, downward markets to have any merits. But of course, if a strategy cannot even survive one type of market, it should be disqualified already.
The professional traders back-test their strategies for decades, if not hundreds of years.
With Martin Armstrong's "super-computer", it should be truly a piece of cake for him to publish such "success" rate from back-testing, AND sell such strategies to any hedge funds. I wonder whether he is not doing that. Maybe his fake statistics canNOT pass the screening by any professional hedge fund traders?
Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).
Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.
olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing
beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)
Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages". As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs. Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know.Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.
olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing
beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I meant that you're using leveraged and nonleveraged ETFs, so the directional movement as expressed in percentages are not the actual more as predicted by Socrates but rather increased by the leverage inconsistently. It isn't as consistent as an unleveraged position- this is where personal knowledge/experience comes in
Yes that would be more accurate
Failed Reversals: 3
Total gain: 12.00%
Total loss: 5.58%
Total profit: 6.42%
Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).
Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.
olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)
Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages". As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs. Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know.Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.
olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing
beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I meant that you're using leveraged and nonleveraged ETFs, so the directional movement as expressed in percentages are not the actual more as predicted by Socrates but rather increased by the leverage inconsistently. It isn't as consistent as an unleveraged position- this is where personal knowledge/experience comes in
Alex, the whole point about using live data from calls is because Armstrong has been known to take credit for calls from things that already happened. https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster Anyone can say they called a market move after it already happened. That's why the chart analysis doesn't count. Let us call it what it is: fraud. If you want to continue saying it works, please prove it. If you want to say that it works without proving it, then I can show you a goose that will lay golden eggs for you for a low cost of just $5,000 (please send by WU or money order thanks).
Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.
olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)
Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "linear p/l percentages". As for the reversals, Armstrong says that bullish reversals are calculated from lows and bearish reversals are calculated from highs. Could he be lying and just renaming the engulf pattern, I don't know. Good work Anon. I managed ~30% this week but I suspect my risk adjusted returns would be worse than yours. Last week was huge though. Unfortunately, I am missing some really good trades being away from the computer at times. That's the issue with pure daytrading, alas.
olegrey, I think using linear P/L percentages as far as posted results go would be more accurate, as leveraged ETFs can skew things. Also, you might want to clarify rules, as there is the doji rule; I am not sure if there are more, but using pure Socrates rules may change things. So I would say that you are adding your own trading skills to avoid some losses and increase gains in this case. Not that its a bad thing
beware that leveraged ETFs suffer from volatility decay, so you may want to use alternatives, eg 3 times the amount in a normal instead of a 3x, etc (beware black swans)Someone mentioned that the Reversals were about exceeding previous highs and lows, with the exits beyond the opposite peak and the 1% rule being support/resistance from the previous peak. If that is so, that is pretty much the 'engulf' pattern in supply and demand trading except with worse entries. It is extremely simple to learn and follow. The theory is that price moves in peaks and valleys due to previous demand or supply. So if price engulfs (goes beyond) the previous high, it means that the sellers at that level were consumed by the buys and price must move up to the next price level. That is simply Armstrong's re-named Reversal. And the 1% rule is that if it exceeds, it will go back to that previous point. Anyone with a beginner's level of TA will be able to recognize this pattern in the charts of 'resistance becomes support' which is the 1% rule. Just look up 'supply demand engulf', 'supply demand FTR', 'decision point trading' and so on, there will be charts and concepts you can see. Armstrong brilliantly repackaged trading techniques that have existed thousands of years ago. Those same techniques can be learned on the internet for free. Of course, the cycles are unique- but they lose money uniquely quicker than any other strategy I've seen.
Hi all, work has been pretty crazy this week, so I have some updates from the past week.
I sold my DOG position because the DOW elected a bullish reversal on 8/28 for a 1.41% loss. I should have sold it on 8/26 because it showed the exact same situation as the 8/15 doji on the etf, but I missed it because like I said, work was crazy. Anyway since the DOW elected a bullish reversal on 8/28 I bought a position in UDOW (3x dow etf) because I was feeling aggressive. The DOW then elected another bullish reversal on 8/29 so I bought another position in UDOW. On 8/30 the market closed lower then it opened but was still TRUE so, as per my rules, I sold both positions making 3.76% and 0.05% respectively
Succesful Reversals: 5
Failed Reversals: 3
Total gain: 14.24%
Total loss: 5.58%
Total profit: 8.66%
I sold my DOG position because the DOW elected a bullish reversal on 8/28 for a 1.41% loss. I should have sold it on 8/26 because it showed the exact same situation as the 8/15 doji on the etf, but I missed it because like I said, work was crazy. Anyway since the DOW elected a bullish reversal on 8/28 I bought a position in UDOW (3x dow etf) because I was feeling aggressive. The DOW then elected another bullish reversal on 8/29 so I bought another position in UDOW. On 8/30 the market closed lower then it opened but was still TRUE so, as per my rules, I sold both positions making 3.76% and 0.05% respectively
Succesful Reversals: 5
Failed Reversals: 3
Total gain: 14.24%
Total loss: 5.58%
Total profit: 8.66%
... placeholder for all the responses ...
You are the ideal type of person for a Martin Armstrong / Socrates support role. You should apply for a job at AE Global. You definitely have the patience that nobody else of the other trolls has. Congratulations!
The other trolls have all left because they could no longer face that bullshit that I am writing here. Gumbi, Strike Eagle 26, over45, Jason100, all gone, totally demoralized. With you, I really don't know what else to do.
Regarding why I do not have more patience with Socrates Pro version is because my computer told me to stop it. I said What? Are you kidding? and the computer replied Stop it, create your own trading strategy.
So I thought alright I am going to try that. After all I must be able to trust my computer, right? During the last six trading days I increased my capital by 51.8%. Just by doing what my computer told me to do. This gain by the way includes the profit from the trade I suggested here for you guys earlier. So it is no bullshit, you can check that trade.
You should really do the same, honestly. Get this Armstrong chart that you screen scraped the numbers off, get the numbers, and reverse engineer the system behind these numbers. This is doable! Then you should have a system that is even better than Socrates! Honestly. Then you can make 102% in 6 trading days, better than me, double. Imagine! I just do not have the patience that you have so I have to feel content with half the profit of what you get. Trust my computer!
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
In order to make an assessment of this Socrates contraption, in an assessment that would actually be worth spending time on one needs to trade a few hundred reversals in multiple markets over an extended period of time, say a year or two because the markets have different phases.
well if you want to be so sure about it, why do you give up after a few month of Socrates Pro? On others you want to put very high standards which you do not follow yourself. And you need computer programming skills to do this because otherwise manually doing this would require an army of people punching data into spreadsheets, also resulting in lots of errors.
wow, one point I tend to agree.However, it has been done anyway using other channels and the result was catastrophic.
I would be interested to see this.Pissing in the wind.
sometimes you make me laugh. it's at least something.So yes, all complete idiot type of people who want to get rid of their money really fast
well, this is again wrong when I think of you and others. For how many years did you follow MA? 10 years? 15 years? And there are so many others only in this forum who did the same. You and others have proven to be incredible patient with MA. If there is a sustained smooth rally then the reversal system elects one bullish reversal after another and they are all profitable. That is no proof that the "system" is profitable. This is like saying that a simple trailing stop loss strategy is profitable.
So what is the point please of making such statements?
So what is the point please of making such statements?
You do again misunderstand my intention. Someone has asked me to comment on the 1% rule, but I can't. instead I've offered an alternative (follow elected reversals). There was no intention to prove the whole reversal system. It was just a hint.
Of course, I don't know if they were changed or not, but as MA states, it is not possible to use the hindsight data Armstrong used.
Of course I also don't just believe everything he posts and says. I wonder why it's supposed to be not possible to use (backtest) the data in hindsight apart from accusations that he is "tweaking" the charts. Any other point? By even mentioning this exercise, where the "data" was derived by screen scraping it from the chart, presenting this as a proof or test you clearly discredit yourself.
And why exactly do you think it's not precise? Of course you think I'm totally nuts (as usual) and take the prices from this chart. If you zoom into the chart, you can easily identify the candle sticks and take the precise price from a proper chart.To be relevant, any data has to be posted here in advance. Marketing material posted by a convicted felon and associates does not count. Sorry.
Mantra, mantra, mantra. I've explained before why I think it's relevant, but when you rant, you forget those things. And no, I won't search the last 50 pages just for you to find the exact post, hahaha.
Pissing in the Wind
In order to make an assessment of this Socrates contraption, an assessment that would actually be worth spending time on one needs to trade a few hundred reversals in multiple markets over an extended period of time, say a year or two because the markets have different phases. And you need computer programming skills to do this because otherwise manually doing this would require an army of people punching data into spreadsheets, also resulting in lots of errors.
That is obviously not possible because con artist Martin Armstrong does not provide authentic verifiable historical data.
However, it has been done anyway using other channels and the result was catastrophic.
The discussion here about what I would call single observation statistics is the most incompetent I have ever seen. Total waste of time. You are over-estimating your capabilities. Pissing in the wind. And that in light of the fact that nobody can post here ANY positive results even on a small scale. There should be at least something truly remarkable to indicate that there is some value somewhere. No such thing. Depressing.
So what can you take to evaluate? Not many options. Quality of service? Integrity? Perhaps make an assessment based on how these people behave and based on trust, credibility, customer service level and so on. We have seen that Armstrong has the worst possible results / grades in this category.
So yes, all complete idiot type of people who want to get rid of their money really fast, go ahead and buy Martin Armstrong services.
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
In order to make an assessment of this Socrates contraption, an assessment that would actually be worth spending time on one needs to trade a few hundred reversals in multiple markets over an extended period of time, say a year or two because the markets have different phases. And you need computer programming skills to do this because otherwise manually doing this would require an army of people punching data into spreadsheets, also resulting in lots of errors.
That is obviously not possible because con artist Martin Armstrong does not provide authentic verifiable historical data.
However, it has been done anyway using other channels and the result was catastrophic.
The discussion here about what I would call single observation statistics is the most incompetent I have ever seen. Total waste of time. You are over-estimating your capabilities. Pissing in the wind. And that in light of the fact that nobody can post here ANY positive results even on a small scale. There should be at least something truly remarkable to indicate that there is some value somewhere. No such thing. Depressing.
So what can you take to evaluate? Not many options. Quality of service? Integrity? Perhaps make an assessment based on how these people behave and based on trust, credibility, customer service level and so on. We have seen that Armstrong has the worst possible results / grades in this category.
So yes, all complete idiot type of people who want to get rid of their money really fast, go ahead and buy Martin Armstrong services.
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
...
I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish. But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.
I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish. But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.
If there is a sustained smooth rally then the reversal system elects one bullish reversal after another and they are all profitable. That is no proof that the "system" is profitable. This is like saying that a simple trailing stop loss strategy is profitable.
So what is the point please of making such statements?
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
com]armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com[/url] for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.
Alex-11, maybe it's now up to you to show us some live trades according to MA's rules.
(Alex-11 will probably say that he does not have to proof or show us anything, which will confirm again our conclusion that nobody can make proper trades using Socrates)
(Alex-11 will probably say that he does not have to proof or show us anything, which will confirm again our conclusion that nobody can make proper trades using Socrates)
nice one
well then, if you know that nobody can make proper Socrates trades, then there is no point for me to try to prove it.
...hen posting 1 'live' trade according to the reversals and losing money...
wow, you can judge a trading system by looking at one single trade. awesome!
Alex-11, can you answer my question about this 1% rule please?
I don't know how well the 1% rule works. Not tested it.I know that the recent Gold rally did work well purely from a reversals point of view. Only 2 daily bearish reversals elected in July, not all 4 bearish. But lot's of weekly and daily bullish reversals elected.
Haha, right. Exactly the answer I was expecting. So up to now there is nobody that wants/dares to show that it works.
They will all say that it works but they are not interested in proving it, they only want to talk about it. Great.
So, this is really like discussing how to run a marathon with somebody that can hardly walk.
Jump to: