1 reply to this topic

[tommyt]

I think OGM mentioned this, but here goes: I looked back to 1967 on the Mc Osc using the ratio adjusted method. A reading of less than -100 (-300 traditional) is extreme and doesn't happen that often. Below are the occurances : 1967-81 10 times 1987 2 times 1990 1 " 1994 1 " 2001 1 " 2002 1 " 2004 1 " 2007 (feb) 1 " almost everyone of these lead to 5-10% gains within 3 months(some are major lows), most have quick 2-3% gains, of the few failures, very nominal losses ST before stabilization/rally. So, a very extreme reading for the moment, should lead to a decent bounce/sideways based on this.

[traderpaul]

I think OGM mentioned this, but here goes:

I looked back to 1967 on the Mc Osc using the ratio adjusted method.
A reading of less than -100 (-300 traditional) is extreme and doesn't happen that often.
Below are the occurances :

1967-81 10 times
1987 2 times
1990 1 "
1994 1 "
2001 1 "
2002 1 "
2004 1 "
2007 (feb) 1 "

almost everyone of these lead to 5-10% gains within 3 months(some are major lows), most have quick 2-3% gains, of the few failures, very nominal losses ST before stabilization/rally. So, a very extreme reading for the moment, should lead to a decent bounce/sideways based on this.

I disagree on this....
China factor
Hedge Funds
Program Trading
Carry Trade
Index Future Trading
Euro
CBOE
Decimalization
Uptick Rule on Short Selling
I can go on and on and you get the idea....
None of that in 1966.....The rules of the game are changing.....Don't look at back data.....

Edited by traderpaul, 29 July 2007 - 07:56 AM.