I remember Armstrong saying that the stop should be set a little opposite the furthest reversal. Perhaps this was the case only for running out of time trades. In any case, waiting for the entire opposing reversal means a very wide stop and therefore a terrible r:r ratio.

Yes, the gmw can be used to find opportunities, assuming they do not have a lower winrate and such. This is assuming it even works at all- it seems more backward looking and a rather lagging indicator that changes often- but again, it needs to go by Reversals for signals. If you look at Armstrong's call for a low in gold for November or a stock high pick for February, that didn't happen. The 25100 weekly reversal on a turning point simply didn't happen and the market just blasted through. I remember this specifically because I had said to the effect that Armstrong needed to state where he would be wrong, and a little later a post came out saying that a weekly close above 25100 would constitute him being wrong. That's what happened. This is the reason why I strongly suspected Armstrong was a reader of this blog. There is simply no other place where his work is being regularly discussed. I also noticed these types of things a few times, like when I said Armstrong should say in his post what the market should do IF it took various scenarios, as so to avoid ambiguity. Lo and behold, he did just that. Those are just 2 examples. Then later StikeEagle comes on and talks so much like Armstrong that it was difficult to distinguish between the two. There were many similarities. He also pulled out some kind of 30-70 rule for a Panic Cycle, stating that it makes a big move or outside reversal. 30% of the time it does one and 70% the other. He did not mention about the times it lost. Now one can argue about it not taking into account reversals, but if it is there, it needs to have an objective difference in price behavior, as well as picking a set of methodologies. You can't flip flop. Either you enter the trade or not. Either you make money or not. You cant say its a turning point on high then later say it didnt count because of a directional change or inversion or whatever. I have not gotten proof from a single person making money using Armstrong's system consistently. Again, you have to have a set of methodologies for all potential scenarios...in ADVANCE. And playing both sides is also unacceptable, as it means you can never be wrong in terms of a forecast but you cant actually prove a trade. And by the way, the one who wrote the imgur user guide was me. I only pretended it was not me because I wanted to have it viewed and critiqued objectively instead of being referenced. I will probably delete it soon because it simply does not work.

The only potential caveat here are the Reversals that may or may not work. It will have to be tested however. I also have an array signal system and it cost me $0.25. I call him George Washington, but the budget Abe lincoln version works just as well for 1c.