You can read a radio signal, just as you can chart a market, but the ability to read or record a signal does not allow you to predict what is yet to be transmited. Runningbear
Thanks Oddi for the input. I completely agree that the Markets are not symetrical. That is the reason why it is imposible to trade cycles with any accuracy or why Elliott Wave can't ever be consistent. My point is that what is perfect about a cycle is ONLY that each cycle has a top and bottom. It doesn't matter the range up to the top from the bottom and it doesn't matter the range down to the bottom from the top. Next, I agree completely as well that there are multiple cycles making up each Market. This is where Einstein comes in. Cycles are chart specific. The Daily will be different then the Weekly and you can create multiple interday charts by using different tick increments and each will have different cyclical patterns. (Example - If you look at a Daily Chart you will see that the S&P Bull Market, created in 1996 perfectly confirmed its completion in September 2000. The subsequent Bear Market, perfectly confirmed it's start in February 2001, and perfectly confirmed it's completion in March 2003. We are currently in a Bull with the first signs of it completing.) I agree too that just knowing the Markets are cyclical is not enough. In order to be able to trade cycles you must know what Market price and Market momentum do together to perfectly confirm each top or bottom regardless where they occur Oddi is correct, since the Markets aren't symetrical one must find something else to use to confirm that cyclical movement in the Markets.
Is is not the ability to to predict what is yet to be transmitted that is important, it's the oscillation of the transmission. My reference is only made to the oscillation. when you watch radio waves they consistently and consecutively move from top to bottom or bottom to top. The Market moves just as consistently and consecutively but price makes the flow move irratic. That irractic nature is what perfectly confirms the tops and bottoms of each cycle but you have to look to see what happens at each top and bottom to see the consistency. The problem is that traders have always looked toward patterns or equations to predict the market instead of looking at the raw data (price and price movement) to see if there was anything consistent there.
We never say so much as when we do not quite know what we want to say. We need few words when we have something to say, but all the words in all the dictionaries will not suffice when we have nothing to say and want desperately to say it. Eric Hoffer
It seems that you are that guy who can "see" the direction. Concentrate on your own trading--you will take all the money in the market. Good luck.
although i appreciate proflogic's sincerity and enthusiasm, and he has a cool website, "seeing" the future of the market based on oscillations is a common trap befalling those of engineering type backgrounds. i have seen this type of faulty thought pattern regarding financial markets numerous times in the past. your challenge is similiar to saying--" a circle is round, prove me wrong" simple logical semantics, not executionable techniques. a challege was issued to you earlier------ are you up for it ?? best wishes in your quest, but you are looking in the wrong direction. surfer
My question was to Prove that the market doesn't perfectly confirm it's cyclical tops and bottoms. Or that the Market doesn't cycle specifically incrementally. My thread has nothing to do with my site as well. I will give away all the information on the site here if I can get individuals to think for themselves instead of trusting someone elses assuptions. Read my original statement and prove me wrong . . . don't manipulate what I said to justify not even trying to disprove it. I have spent 8 years researching market movement from a standpoint of naked oscillation. I have used NO EXISTING theory to base anything from. My only goal was to confirm what is perfect in the Market and what was a variable. If you know of another individual that has researched the Market from the same standpoint, for the same length of time or longer . . . I would love to sit down and compare notes. Everyone I have ever spoken to though has studied the Market from someone else's theory . . . not taking the time to figure anything out on their own. Why is it so hard to believe something exists, just because you weren't aware of it? I'm delusional just because you say I am . . . prove me wrong. I'm a researcher looking for that person that see's something I might have missed. I'm not perfect. Prove what you say is valid. Not with words but with fact. I can prove that Market Price is cyclical using tick charts. I can prove that Market Price moves from cyclical top to cyclical bottom. I can prove that every top and bottom of a cycle does one spacific thing to confirm it's completed its move up or down. Now . . . prove that I'm wrong.
i am not saying you are delusional, simply that it is delusional to view the market in this manner. it is extremely seductive, but it remains delusional. you can only prove the cyclical nature of the market in hindsight, and if you could project this into the future--the "ever changing" cycles would soon alter the game. there are exploitable edges all over in the markets, but oscillition is not one of them, cyclical studies are fun for analysis, however not very accurate for practical trading. your statements can not be disproved by semantics, however -- a challenge was issued earlier--are you up for it ?? 8 years is not a very long time to have studied something. there are teams of quants backed with practically unlimited budgets that searching in vain for what you claim to have found--- market seduction does not discriminate on the basis of intelligence or wealth. you know the old double a penny for 30 days routine, if you found what you claim to have found, i await the markets to stop functioning since they have been 'cornered'. surfer
I am up to the challenge but would prefer to have someone try to prove me wrong. Quants are lazy. I worked with the head quant for Deutsche Bank, he retired 10/01. We had long discussions. He got tired of trying to prove me wrong. Greed will undo any Methodology . . . where would the fun be in that. As long as there are people such as yourself telling me that it is an impossibility that what I claim works . . . it will work. "It is foolhearty to think that there is perfection in the Market . . . I will continue to do what I do because THAT won't work. And besides, I refuse to spend a second on MY valuable time or brainpower confirming it IS possible" Sound familiar. I rely on the apathy of traders in general to keep the Market flowing just as it has since day one. Cyclical trading works because no one believes it can. It will never become a standard because I won't let it. I just want people to start thinking for themselves and to stop following "gurus" to the poor house. I don't want one single trader to trade what I tell them to I want traders to trade what they see and can confirm with their own 2 eyes. If they can not confirm anything . . . don't trade anything. What a concept.
do i detect shades of welles wilder's "delta phenomena" in this statement ?? cyclical analysis works, cyclical trading does not--- those who understand this will always be one step ahead.... :eek: