23 replies to this topic

[airedale88]

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.

hose, what "work" did you try? there are differences.

a half hearted attempt at studying/applying any form of T/A could lead to your same conclusion.

[arbman]

Cycles are basically used to measure the market momentum in Hurst's work. Hurst's model uses an expected low and high for timing and the way the market reaches to that point, it tells you everything about the market momentum when a cycle low has occured, cycle highs are harder. It is more about reacting to the market than dictating the market what it is. I developed on this concept a few additional principles with respect to the changes in the cycle periods to gage some of the market momentum issues and some more fundamental cyclical sector rotations that some will consider as pollutants. Nothing too spectacular, most of them makes sense in the proper context and more importantly made money for me over the years...

[Echo]

HoseB



U want proof? Look here: http://www.traders-t...ult_type=topics



Go to begining and get bizzy. echo and out

[IndexTrader]

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.

You seem to be avoiding the obvious....Airedales very apparent and posted success with cycles. The fact that you are incapable of understanding cycles doesn't mean they are false necessarily, or too complicated. There are other possibilities that explain your inability to apply them. Fortunately for you, you have a history of published posts by Airdale where you can take a look to see how someone who knows what they are doing applies the analysis.

IT