Art's futures biases for April 17. A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias. __________________________________________________ The CzarCharts are generating convincing sell signals in the index complex for Friday.
Art's futures biases for April 20. A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.
Art's futures biases for April 21. A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.
Art's futures biases for April 22. A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.
Art's futures biases for April 23 A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias. __________________________________________________ Scary late-afternoon melt notwithstanding, the CzarCharts are predominantly bullish in the indices for Thursday, particularly the S&P.
A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias. __________________________________________________ For Friday, the Czar signals remain solidly bullish in the indices.
Art's futures biases for April 27. A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.
Sorry for picking up on such an old post but... As an strong advocate of mechnical trading methods doesn't: "That's not always a hard and fast rule given other indicators I consider, but when I am going to make an exception, I do disclose that." ...indicate a discretionary approach? Thx D
fundjunkie wrote Sorry for picking up on such an old post but... As an strong advocate of mechnical trading methods doesn't: "That's not always a hard and fast rule given other indicators I consider, but when I am going to make an exception, I do disclose that." ...indicate a discretionary approach? Thx D ---------------------------------------- etuser wrote My dad used to say: "If a rule was never broken then why would need a rule at all?" ETUser ------------------------------------------------ there are different degrees of advisory fandom--for lack of a better term. my take on the varying degrees goes like this--those seeking entertainment or whatever color commentary are not going to be happy with nothing more than cold stats. i've made no bones about how my opinion has nothing to do with my profits--they're all derived 100 percent mechanically. still, some people aren't happy if i don't expound a bit more. the fact that i haven't been able to make money off my gut doesn't mean that i don't sometimes correctly call a market overview or that my perspective is worthless. i just have a glitch that makes me self-destruct whenever i give myself permission to open those floodgates. the other thing i've never hidden is that i'm offering specific systems that have tested well and that provide signals every day--something else market enthusiasts tend to appreciate. that doesn't mean that you're getting 100 percent of every system i'm personally using, nor do i feel compelled for such full disclosure. not in a freebie site at any rate. so one of the things i'm alluding to when i'm suggesting opinions that aren't czarchart related is , i've got other reasons for believing what i believe. i don't think it should mess anyone up that i'm throwing that out there. e. t. senior is correct as far as i'm concerned. those really serious about finding their paths to profitability would probably do better to merely figure out what way they are going to mechanize the raw stats i offer, and then follow them without regard to what my text is saying. i would consider that Level Two commitment. Level One commitment is you really don't care at all what my stats or i am saying--you don't trust anything you haven't exhaustedly tested yourself and you wouldn't have it any other way. i would argue that i can potentially (not absolutely guaranteed) help those who seek it. still, i would not argue with anyone whose contention is "why should i listen to you?"