Quote from: bikefront on August 31, 2019, 09:35:56 PM

Quote from: olegrey on August 31, 2019, 05:18:12 PM

Quote from: bikefront on August 31, 2019, 02:32:46 PM

Quote from: olegrey on August 31, 2019, 06:36:24 AM

Quote from: bikefront on August 31, 2019, 04:17:25 AM

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.

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

Gotcha, so you want me to express the percentages in terms of the DOW, not the ETFs I'm using?

Yes that would be more accurate

Succesful Reversals: 5
Failed Reversals: 3
Total gain: 12.00%
Total loss: 5.58%
Total profit: 6.42%