Hi, Anyone using this system I have it on a 30 day trial! but I am a bit disappointed, they keep moving the dates when the stocks should reach the targets, ie Xerox CORP foirst it was Nove 21 2002 now it is may or something 2003...........
i remember prechter was all over the tv talking about a crash to 4000 on almost the bottom of the market.oops. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={4DB7BBC8-CA0F-49A3-B5E9-AF20964AD5EA}&siteid=mktw
This software is marketed as wave tool that pick out the best fit wave for whatever stock you choose without you knowing anything about ewave but that is not the case. I have seen it work but only it capable hand http://www.polarpacific.com/Articles/Papers/financial2.htm
I tried the Analyzer 2 program for a while when it was on trial. It drove me nuts, it was, I feel a very limited package and missed most of the projections. I was trying it as a comparison to Advanced GET which I have been using for nearly a year. At least for me no comparison. Get does have a EW feature but has dozens of other studies and tools that enhance EW and make it effective. Even with GET it is only a setup projector and I don't feel it can be relied on for projections that are not in the setup state. In GET I love the Fibronacci tools, the elypses, the MOBs, and the oscillators. I tried GET originally because some of its' features resembled a system that I had developed about 25 years ago for a commodity that I produce and need market timing for. It fulfilled my expectations and now I don't trade anything, whatever market without a least seeing what GET says. I have heard that EW really works best for commodities, probably since they tend to be cyclical and some seasonal. Check the number of commodity trading firms using some form of EW and I think you will see much wider use of EW than with stocks. None of the packages are the Holy Grail only tools that work for some and not others.
I was tempted to buy the program and as they are based in Australia I asked around the forums here if anyone used it. Couldn't find anyone but found they had spamed a lot of people. What put me off buying was the hard selling tatics they used. E-Mailing me every few days, using my first name constantly and telling me I had only a few days to buy before the price went through the roof. Well I didn't buy and asked them to unsubscribe me from there e-mail. The e-mails are still coming through trying to sell me other products now. The whole business looks very shonkey to me. I am still interested in Elliott wave systems and have heard that a program called MT Predictor is very good, can anyone here vouch for it? Cyclops.
Couple of years ago, they offered stripped down live version as a trial (I still have it on my laptop). Past turns, the program labels a wave count. Then as the market unfolds, they go back and relabel the entire wave structure to make the last label look correct. (Problem is, all those "relabels" are losers which their backtesting does not account for. You know, sort of like option expensing and unfunded pension liabilities in US C.R.A.P accounting?) Newbies buy the darn thing and backtest it. Are ASTONISHED at it's accuracy. I spent a couple of weekends forward testing on historical data and was amazed myself at how little it got right. They claim "80-90% Correct!" It's more like 89-90% WRONG. They occasionally get a big one right (don't we all), but overall I have to rate it "a hazard to one's wealth". The new version is EWAIII, and it's available for $1495/YR LEASE, only!
I use it as a reference only. I believe it only works on large major index tracking stocks and only on very long term projections. Since I'm a very short term Investor, it's value to me is only of reference, not a trading strategy.
If you're feeling lonely or just not receiving enough email then this is the service for you and I can 100% gaurantee you won't be disappointed.
gnome makes THE point about Ewaves - they always seem to be 100% correct in hindsight but do a horrible job as the "predictive" tool they're claimed to be. No better (and probably worse) than an old fashioned curve fit.