23 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

Actually, I've seen studies what showed very clearly that the market is, indeed, cyclical. It's darned hard to make money from those academic studies, but there you have it. Since I've seen folks with real money make real money over time using cycles, I have to say that there's something to them. The thing is, so many get bagged. My read is that cycles tend to encourage some very destructive trading habits and unless very solid trading discipline is utilized, there can be huge problems and huge losses when a cycle doesn't play out as expected. There's a reason why the first thing my dad taught me about trading was, "Have no preconceived notions about the market." In any case, they generally aren't for me and I think many folks SHOULDN'T use them. Not that they won't be right 80% of the time, but they'll be so spectacularly wrong that they'll give back or fail to make money from all those winners.

[steve]

It's not the analysis method, give me a good fisherman

[HoseB]

"... I've seen studies what showed very clearly that the market is, indeed, cyclical...."

Years ago I was enamored with the apparent regularity of the stock market's "20 week cycle lows". Just about the time I caught on to it, the cycle-like behavior disappeared.

The cycle purveyors apparently have to contend with cycles being either early or late... if off-time enough, they call them "translations". Then of course, are the "inversions"... when things are the opposite of expected, they're accepted as "normal".

Like I said earlier.... I've tried to follow any number of cycle purveyors in the past (I even subscribed to Eliades work many years ago), and none have so far come up even modest expectations.

Edited by HoseB, 08 October 2007 - 02:11 PM.

[bigtrader]

If you don't believe, you don't. Those of us that know they work, know. No need for me to waste any more bandwidth.

[HoseB]

If you don't believe, you don't.

Those of us that know they work, know. No need for me to waste any more bandwidth.

Cycles (nor anything else about the market) shouldn't need to be "believed in" like it's a religion. There should be empiricle evidence if valid.

What/where can we reference for indicaton they actually do work?

Edited by HoseB, 08 October 2007 - 02:32 PM.

[Russ]

Airedale88 on this site uses the Hurst methods and he has been very good calling the low last March and then the low in August (which was right translated but still he had forcast that low months before it happened. Martin Armstrong Pi cycle has empiricle evidence into the billions to one odds that they are not just a fluke. The evidence for cycles is there but you have to know what to look for and Airedale88 obviously does.

[milbank]

It's October 8th and it's 81 degrees in New York. See, those darn seasonal cycles don't work! It's the middle of summer when the cycle says it's supposed to be autumn! This might go on until December or beyond! Anyway back to the real world...trading.

[heretic247]

If you don't believe, you don't.

Those of us that know they work, know. No need for me to waste any more bandwidth.

Cycles (nor anything else about the market) shouldn't need to be "believed in" like it's a religion. There should be empiricle evidence if valid.

What/where can we reference for indicaton they actually do work?

Where?? Look no further than Airdale's posts. He's here isn't he? No excuses.

But ...If you want indications they actually work then you have to Do the work yourself instead of following someone else's.

[HoseB]

If you don't believe, you don't.

Those of us that know they work, know. No need for me to waste any more bandwidth.

Cycles (nor anything else about the market) shouldn't need to be "believed in" like it's a religion. There should be empiricle evidence if valid.

What/where can we reference for indicaton they actually do work?

Where?? Look no further than Airdale's posts. He's here isn't he? No excuses.

But ...If you want indications they actually work then you have to Do the work yourself instead of following someone else's.

Well, I've tried to do the work myself. And I've followed the work of others. Still, no joy. Therefore, either (1) cycle analysis is a false concept, or (2) it's too complicated and/or cryptic to be an effective tool.

I'm of the school that a trading concept must be (1) recently highly correlative to market behavior, and (2) simple enough for a novice to grasp for capital to be risked. In other words, KISS. Cycles ain't that.

[Tor]

If you don't believe, you don't.

Those of us that know they work, know. No need for me to waste any more bandwidth.

Cycles (nor anything else about the market) shouldn't need to be "believed in" like it's a religion. There should be empiricle evidence if valid.

What/where can we reference for indicaton they actually do work?

Where?? Look no further than Airdale's posts. He's here isn't he? No excuses.

But ...If you want indications they actually work then you have to Do the work yourself instead of following someone else's.

Well, I've tried to do the work myself. And I've followed the work of others. Still, no joy. Therefore, either (1) cycle analysis is a false concept, or (2) it's too complicated and/or cryptic to be an effective tool.

I'm of the school that a trading concept must be (1) recently highly correlative to market behavior, and (2) simple enough for a novice to grasp for capital to be risked. In other words, KISS. Cycles ain't that.

Point is Hose, nothing CAN work all the time, by definition.......that is apart from one thing hehehehhe. I wish I knew!!