When I say bottom I mean reversal for a push to a new high (above preceding high of 8743) since the target on upper scale is above (I said in another post maxi potential about 9200 although it won't be a straight line and not done within days but weeks or months and potential is potential it must be confirmed by day to day calculation hee hee). But the scenario is nearly invalidated since we made the break above the limit of 8573 (except if we close below) so the bulls could be back more sooner than expected. But must wait for tomorrow, open is more important than close and market must hold tomorrow above 8615 to continue. So tomorrow is another day that's why I do daytrading only it is less risk because of less surprise. Understanding the charts has less to do with engineering than with learning the rules (there are some people that are in the group that are practicing it without having a scientific background for example that has failed before on futures market and that now copes well.) for I will never reveal the equations. So what you don't understand is how the equations are crafted and since laboratories in the whole world are looking after a physical model so that many think that it cannot even exist. I even know a private trader who is financing with others research on chaos theory and financial market for an investment of about 20000$ but combined with other it reach millions. My own cost has been about 300000 $ of real cash in 4 years essentially due to high cost of salary of an engineer in France that is to say I do only count the cash that has been really spent as output and not valorise my own time (my time is valorised at 0 here ). So don't expect that I will ever revealed that. Some researchers think that a deterministic model cannot exist because they suppose that the market is driven by the agents. it is practically all existing research that are based on that but as one know a premisce that is false and the rest can only be false and I pretend that this premisce is false. It can only explain the crowd behavior stochastically and predict crash with some probability but as for market timing none because timing means causality and causality means determinism. In fact this model must exist already but not officially since the consequence of recognising it would be to demonstrate that the organisers of the market are overpricing the risk assets and even more important consequences I won't talk about here.
I saw another poster awhile back correlate trading to coaching and I agree with the correlation. You assess what a team does by looking at game films (historical charts), and from that you prepare for tomorrow's game. As the game progresses you make adjustments and call plays that you PREDICT will work. Some do, some don't. Some work as planned, some work because of a fantastic individual unplanned-for effort (news, earnings, etc.). Regardless, every play is a prediction. So sit back and enjoy the game klutz.
I said break at 8531 and bulls limit at 8573.38 and market did it (look at intraday chart yourself of Dow Jones: it stalled heavily at 8573.02 and 8531 was never touched again except a mere retest at 8531.28). But it has made the break above 8573 so the 8328 target could be differed (differed means that we should still do it later next time we revisit a new low). What is important is not the prediction is to know how to invalidate it. In mathematics knowing A or -A is equivalent. I could say bulls should take control above 8573 that doesn't change much except that you would be missing the open .
"Looking at lower scales projection (I won't show you the model) the minimum resistance for invalidating the bearish trend is 8598." This is why I said that: you can see on picture below showing lower scale than the weekly one that 8598 is the first limit for higher target and that the upper limit is 8615. We approached this latter for real at 8612 so tomorrow must confirm it or the bears can reattack again . If the bulls succeed tomorrow you can see a "TL" label which means "Top Level" so the potential for bulls would be 8765 with a bear panic at 8745 since they would see a break to new high . That's where market can resume its bearish cycle again. <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=259193>
It depends how precise is the game. If you say up or down well haha ! But if you say break at 8531 and Stall at 8573 it's very different or you ignore probability calculation that this is a very low probability that it is true by chance. Don't worry I am preparing a monte carlo simulator to make people feel about the probabilities. Make precise call yourself not just up or down with market's limit and we'll see if they make sense by looking at charts afterwards. Trading is not about making forecast it is about making decision. But decision planning is mostly based on forecast, most people will do more or less fuzzy forecast but it is still forecast as soon as you make some trading plan. Money management is forcast also since you decide to cut a position because you predict that things shouldn't go into what you have expected (forecasted). That you don't use the term forecast doesn't change its nature. A statistician said: "global certainty and randomness is not antinomy" and this is contrary to most common people belief who has not a full understanding of probability. So even in case of non deterministic model you can still do forecast in some cases. And since randomness leads to global certainty this is at least one reason for the market for not to be random again against common belief and even not for so long ago again official theory of market's efficiency based on randomness but they have given up and now postulates that market efficient IS without being based on randomness (let's remark that they had given in the past false reason for efficiency and that since they suppressed the reason it now becomes a postulate ).
Okay thanks for the fun. I'll let the rest of you take note of the Dow 200 day sma for yourselves and be amazed when there is support there. One chart, one line. Of course it won't require you to pay a french engineer 300K to take a look for yourself... you can go to any free website like BigCharts and look. But hey, it is your money and you should spend it the way you see fit to do so. Au revoir mon amis!
Tss tss I make a call day to day on INTRADAY basis and try to the pinpoint (2 absolute points error on Dow Jones maximum 10/12 at super top or super bottom). Don't worry I have been trading with moving averages for 4 years before this model I know perfectly how imprecise they are. I can now trade at very low scale competing directly with market makers whereas with 200 ma I would be very surprised of when it will be touched that you can make any call of when, intraday noise around it etc. If you don't know a truth: you can draw a 200 ma even on pure random noise you have absolutly no proof that it forecasts anything (I assure you draw your MMA 200 and you will have the impression that the random noise bounce back on it which is pure illusion ) and some economists even say that you are crazy to do so with market . So don't try to make think that others are the most idiots for you could belong to the group also .
Don't care for my money I can care for it myself I don't understand why you feel problem with other's people forecast tell me: is it psychological or what ?
If someone can prove that MM200 gives consistent result statistically he can send it to an economic paper and compete for a nobel prize since the economists have made thorough tests on them already and concluded that they are not significant . So when you use MA it is just a component for entering the market (using it as signal) and you must then compensate heavily on Money Management which requires self control, relatively more capital or constraint to less exposure, subjective estimation of risk etc... that is to say you have just displaced the problem from market forecasting to risk forecasting but by changing a label on something doesn't change much the difficulty nature of the thing . Whereas with a true forecast model there is much less guessing as for money management itself.