Jump to content



Photo

Here's your chance to fame


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31 totterdell91

totterdell91

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 494 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 01:42 AM

back test of EMA 41, then 2 mtgp

#32 NAV

NAV

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 01:43 AM

NAV, you mean a fake poke over 1100 not 1000


That's right. :D

"It's not the knowing that is difficult, but the doing"

 

https://twitter.com/Trader_NAV

 

 


#33 dasein

dasein

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 7,696 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:11 AM

option 2, reasons here - http://www.traders-t...?...st&p=533076, with agreement to Semis post that we let the market show us. partial short.

i find it funny that option 1 has no range for price, just down now. option 2 has a 20 point range for tippers to be right, and option 3 has a 120 point range for tippers to be right...talk about skew!

Edited by dasein, 08 July 2010 - 03:13 AM.

best,
klh

#34 NAV

NAV

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 04:05 AM

i find it funny that option 1 has no range for price, just down now. option 2 has a 20 point range for tippers to be right, and option 3 has a 120 point range for tippers to be right...talk about skew!


The probability of success diminishes as you go from option #1 towards option #4, as the larger trend is still down. So that should offset the larger latitude allowed for those options.

"It's not the knowing that is difficult, but the doing"

 

https://twitter.com/Trader_NAV

 

 


#35 dasein

dasein

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 7,696 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 04:18 AM

not really Nav - you are modelling your probabilities in a very off the cuff manner, options pricing models sorely disagree. i.e. using your price and time inputs, option 3 is much more valuable, but you get it for the same price as 1 or 2!

Edited by dasein, 08 July 2010 - 04:18 AM.

best,
klh

#36 capgain55

capgain55

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 197 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 07:17 AM

There's always someone who would claim. I (was the only one who :P ) predicted the top in 2000, 2007, 1987 et al. Just for fun, let's see how many of you get a medium term projection right. No Ifs and Buts allowed. The options are:

1) We topped out today. The sucker is done and it was a classic bear market squeeze. Short the crap out of it. We are headed for new lows.

2) We may have slightly more upside to the 1070-1090 area. But that would be a gift from the bear godz. We are headed for new lows from there.

3) We may see some pullback near term (or not), but we have started a multi-week rally which should take us above 1100, but not to new recovery highs above SPX 1220. We won't see new lows for a few weeks.

4) To the moon baby ! New highs above 1220 is a given.

Roll your dice. Let's see how many of you get it right. Like Yogi Berra says, "It's difficult to predict, especially the future" :P


I will go with option 3.


I'll have to go with #3, but SPX goes no higher then 1125.

cap.

Edited by capgain55, 08 July 2010 - 07:19 AM.


#37 thespookyone

thespookyone

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,043 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 05:13 PM

And if it was fame I was after, instead of $$$$=I'd expect myself to be more accurate than any of the above choices present. I'd want to be within 3 points or so of calling the top on SPX to feel I did decent work. The top, to be followed by a SWEET drop, is SPX CASH 1085.26.

#38 outsider

outsider

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 562 posts

Posted 04 November 2010 - 09:35 PM

B) How in the hell did this happen... It's better to be lucky than smart, good lookin, or rich. I'm ready to back away when unemployment reaches 7%.

Out




Thanks for all the responses. Come'n guys, we need more participation. There's nothing to lose except a prediction going wrong, which is not unusual in this business. Roll the dice ! :D


OK, #4 sometime by year end, though it may not close there. Hey, it's an election year and the dems are big spenders!! :huh:

Out