23 replies to this topic

[HoseB]

1. I've often checked into purveyors' cycle work, never finding one reliable enough to risk $$$ upon.

2. Years ago when my program was follwed in Steve Shellan's MoniResearch newsletter, he made the observation... The programs with the best overall results as a group were those who advocated "seasonals". The programs with the worst overall results were those who emphasized "cycles".

As soon as I hear someone say "cycle", I conclude he's "fishin' in a dry hole".. and I cast my line elsewhere.

Edited by HoseB, 08 October 2007 - 12:56 PM.

[Cirrus]

I've seen cycles work very very well when incorporated with other basic methodologies. IMO every investment methodology should start with price and then add in volume. Next I think you need to add NHs/NLs and market breadth. The price, volume and internals simply don't lie--especially price. Following cycles blindly can be very dangerous, though, so I think you got that one correct.

[pisces]

1. I've often checked into purveyors' cycle work, never finding one reliable enough to risk $$$ upon.

2. Years ago when my program was follwed in Steve Shellan's MoniResearch newsletter, he made the observation... The programs with the best overall results as a group were those who advocated "seasonals". The programs with the worst overall results were those who emphasized "cycles".

As soon as I hear someone say "cycle", I conclude he's "fishin' in a dry hole".. and I cast my line elsewhere.

TO EACH HIS OWN,,,fwiw,,

good trading to all,



Pisces.

[denleo]

I think any analysis (including cycles) can work just fine as long as it is bullish. Denleo

[NAV]

Gentleman, Allow me to disagree. I have seen cycle analysts mixing cycles with DOW theory.....mixing cycles with e-waves.....mixing with seasonals....mixing with fundamentals.......Most of these guys have been spectacularly wrong. Airedale88 does pure cycles work. Doesn't mix it with any other pollutants. His consistency and accuracy has been remarkable.

[HoseB]

I think any analysis (including cycles) can work just fine as long as it is bullish.

Denleo

LOL! Good one! In the long run, that's correctamundo...

[airedale88]

1. I've often checked into purveyors' cycle work, never finding one reliable enough to risk $$$ upon.

2. Years ago when my program was follwed in Steve Shellan's MoniResearch newsletter, he made the observation... The programs with the best overall results as a group were those who advocated "seasonals". The programs with the worst overall results were those who emphasized "cycles".

As soon as I hear someone say "cycle", I conclude he's "fishin' in a dry hole".. and I cast my line elsewhere.

after reading this i was ready to throw away 25+ yrs of study. then i thought about it a bit more. a lot of "fishermen" don't even know how to bait a hook.



thnx nav.

[relax]

dont mean to offend you hoseB but you sound like someone who has not traded the market daily for a long period, because then you would know to appreciate time analysis

[HoseB]

dont mean to offend you hoseB

but you sound like someone who has not traded the market daily for a long period, because then you would know to appreciate time analysis

No offense taken... I've been often misread.

I've been trading for 25 years.... VERY little of what I've ever considered about the market has turned out to be true. "Cycles" is on my list of false concepts. However, being a man of science, my mind is open... not to wishful thinking nor hyperbole however.

I'll leave open the notion that either (1) "market cycles" are so incredibly subtle and cryptic that nobody [or almost nobody] can figure them out (which would make them very valuable indeed), or (2) they do not really exist.

Even if they do exist, they apparently go against the grain of my market guiding light... of KISS.

Edited by HoseB, 08 October 2007 - 01:47 PM.

[relax]

respect for keeping an open mind, that is the wisest thing an intelligent man can do my list of false concepts is definitely the state of the economy and in generel economic data it's funny how people are quick to point out mistakes in certain analysis, just because they're doubting it from the start just like any analysis, cycle analysis is not always accurate, but it will certainly a good view of the bigger and small picture of the market just think about how often fundamental analysis is wrong, but people still continue to use, why - because it is accepted and gives us an impression of being intelligent and knowledgeable why be intelligent about something which does not serve the purpose as well as other analysis