Quote from: psp777 on June 06, 2019, 03:09:35 AM

So Armstrongs 1% rule worked , but it didn't if you wanted to trade it.

Maybe it doesn't work each time, but if it worked 7 out of 10 times, it would still be good, right?
Also you could loose 7 times small amounts and have only 3 win's, but they are big enough to cover the 7 loosing trades and make enough profit on top, it would be fine. I haven't tested this with the 1% rule, but this is often times a strategy in trading which is supposed to work with certain methods. It "only" need to be observed long enough to know if it works on not.

Quote from: Kiwibird on June 08, 2019, 06:52:59 AM

Did anyone else see it??!

yes, I did.

Quote from: AnonymousCoder on June 08, 2019, 05:31:30 AM

all these signals reveal that the accuracy is 50%

Maybe your testing methods has some problems. I've done a reversal back test on 50+ samples and it had more than 50% success rate. This is only on Reversals. Very black and white. Buy and sell signals.
http://armstrong.forumprofi.de/showthread.php?tid=78
How did you backtest the reversals? Only on elected reversals (like I did when you follow the link)?

Quote from: Alex4711 on June 08, 2019, 07:55:23 AM

It is fair also to say that based on technical analysis alone the bottom of June 3rd would have been expected as it was exactly the minimum of March 8th. So no reversals would
have been required to predict a proabability of bouncing.

Maybe, but reversals could give you additional confidence to enter/exit/omit a trade.