search elliott


  • Google
Share/Bookmark

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

FlagCounter

  • Where From?
    free counters
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Calm Before the Coming News Storm | Main | Last Chance is About Over »

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

da bear

elskid,


didn't know that about UUP. dang. shoulda got back in.

anyone have any ideas about gold right now? i have it as completing or nearly completing wave v of B of 2. after this will be wave C down. followed by CYCLE III of PRIMARY V up.


da bear

Rubb M.Y. Loins

"Rubb M.Y. Loins and Michael are the same person.

Posted by: Ned Bushong | Thursday, November 05, 2009 at 11:12 AM"

I can asure you that is not the case but because you are a chronic fake poster yourself you think others might be as well.

Mamma Boom Boom

>>anyone have any ideas about gold right now?<<

It's right against the upper limit of my best indicator. It's do or die. I think it will die, but I'm nervous.

Cary Lloyd

Rubb M.Y. Loins is a fake name if ever I heard one. I hae never heard "Rubb" as a first name and if you say it slowly it's like "Rub MY lions" or something weird like that. Google turns up no "Rubb Loins" or "Rubb M.Y. Loins" or "Rubb M.Y."

I'm calling BS on that one, folks. 233 points is the next fibonaci, yes, Frank. Will we get there? Yes, but it might take a couple of days. Your best bet is to sit tight and buy puts but make sure they expire in Jan because the crash (P3, "Great Bear", "Supercycle", whatever) could take more than a few weeks. Good luck and keep telling the world about Prechter. The man deserves his do.

Captain Obvious

Rubb M.Y. Loins is a fake name if ever I heard one. I hae never heard "Rubb" as a first name and if you say it slowly it's like "Rub MY lions" or something weird like that. Google turns up no "Rubb Loins" or "Rubb M.Y. Loins" or "Rubb M.Y."

I'm calling BS on that one, folks.

I can see I'm not needed here.

Michael

"Rubb M.Y. Loins and Michael are the same person."
--- Ned

Ned, I have $1,000 that says that you are wrong.
Feel free to put your money where your big mouth is and we can confirm IP addresses via Yelnick.

Mamma Boom Boom

Public Confidence:

http://www.bushongbusiness.com/webbbs/index.cgi?noframes;read=18296

Michael

Ned,

How are you able to TRADE off that kind of information and data? Or are you simply trying to rationalize investment in Real Estate because of your occupation as a real estate broker?

joe

Yelnik -

Dollar held on the close. Look, I am thinking - Prechter may be right, that the dollar bottomed and therefore the equity markets would top - his basic premise. But the dollar rally could certainly happen after the fact of the DJIA top, too. One leads the other - but the order of the leadership - was never clear.

If dollar holds now - especially if the up dow move holds for a few days - then I don't care if or not I see dollar break up, just not break down.

And I believe you think like I do - if the DOW lead this up move relatively - it also leads it down.

This is close now.

Joe

Hockthefarm

Yelnick:

Prechter's latest chat with the street:

http://tinyurl.com/yh6jjtp

FWIW, my vote would be to return to your previous format. 20 messages from a guy unsure of the difference between to, too and probably two. Then there are the other 96% of posters deciding who has the biggest virtual tool. Maybe a different floor, but definitely the same building.

Hock

joe

Thanks Hock - I did not know he did tech ticker again.

Joe

Schmucky McDupe

Excellent! Prechter did Talk Ticker! I will watch it and rally my own confidence. I have been feeling a little glum lately since I went short in August on Prechter's prediction. But I'm sure if I listen to him enough and touch my lucky fibonaci number 21 (Fibonaci numbers are the key to mass psychology --PhD in psychology plus drummer plus SCHOLARSHIP TO YALE --ivy league, folks!-- UNIVERISTY)

I love the mysterious wonderful unfoldings of the waves. They are beautiful to behold. Like a spiral shell or galaxy or EWT newsletter for sale monthly (pro rated guarantee) Hockberg, Kendall and the MASTER BLASTER ROBERT PREchter.

Kallidromos

No free week in Europe Yelnick
Cut me in for three clicks.
You deserve it anyway.
I will ask again to block insulting comments and comments with inappropriate language. The subject of Elliot waves and derived methodologies is far too beautiful to be mixed with scatology.

Sincerely,

Kallidromos

joe

Like your dripping with sarcasim post schmucky - I really do.

joe

Yelnik -

You know the technicals look terrible, you know Prechter has a habbit of being off in timing and you know this market is about spent - I think.

You are not really holding for a dollar break - you are waiting just like I am for the "stars to align" -

I think we are really close now - so do you, right??

This is more about trading instinct than lines on a chart. And we have the same charts with the same lines.

You have one of the best stock sites I have ever come across Yelnik - and I think you actually do know what you are talking about.

Kudos.

Joe

Hockthefarm

Chart points to a weak number tomorrow on the jobs front.

http://tinyurl.com/ycv6bpu

If anyone knows how good things are out there, it should be these folks.

yelnick

Kalidromos, thanks for the kind thoughts. Sorry you cannot get the STU from over there. Look for some comments from me after Fri. BTW I may have to go back to the old way on the comments, but let's give it a bit of time first

Tom Thumb, good friend of Phineas

You love him, you hate him, but you cannot ignore him. He is in your thoughts, your dreams, your fantasies. That confident style, that weird last name, the psychology degree from Yale, and your own refusal to concede that you wasted thirty or forty bucks on month on his advice and, worse, actually took it. The neat, easy-to-read chart that explains exactly where we are at every scale of the move. The sixth-grade level essays that claim to be impartial, dispassionate, float-above-it-all perspective but are laced with jabs at the Fed and pols a supercilious sheen toward all the sheeplike fools that you surely aren't or you wouldn't be reading this special, intellectual, smarter-than-the-rest newsletter. It all adds up to a special little cult of wannabelievers who'll chalk up every downside move to the man's unlocking the secret of the universer for subscribers only and every upside move to patience and redemption of the man's call for a great bull market some thirty-odd years ago. Which is all to say that you are a member of a cult and have decided that it's easier and more soothing to believe in real-life tooth fairies who possess special magical secrets than consider that success in the markets is a matter of dumb luck.

Mamma Boom Boom

>>Tom Thumb, good friend of Phineas <<

Are you suicidal?

Gen T.T.

Just trying to warn people off cults. Ounce of prevention! And this website tends to make passersby think there is some reason or evidence behind the crap discussed.

There's a curious phenomenon that when people have a worse time with something they report enjoying it more. Same jobs give more satisfaction when they pay less, e.g. The theory is we have to justify to ourselves why we go through unpleasant things. Like shelling out for a monthly crystal ball. (I think boot camps and frat hazings benefit from the process, too.)

I am here to warn people: Elliott Wave Theory and Socionomics are bs. They exist to enrich, and perhaps gratify the egos of, those who purport to have "mastered" them. Scientific American ran a piece by Mandelbrot on the fractal nature of markets. Robert Prechter or one of his followers sent a letter complaining that credit wasn't given to RN Elliott (and, I suppose, by association, to Prechter himself) for the discovery.

Mandelbrot wrote a rebuttal that hit the nail on the head: Science shouldn't depend upon a particular person to make itself known. It should be clear to all, practicable to all. Elliott Wave BS is squishy and open to interpretation. Some "practitioners" claim to have a special gift for "applying" it.

If a model has integrity, those who come to know it better should converge on ideas, not diverge.

I don't know if the EWT people believe what they preach like Jim Jones but they are surely addicted to the cash flow that preys on ignorance and fear and the very herding instincts they claim to help people overcome.

Ashish Agarwal

Yelnick,
I still think that the bullshitters need filtering rather than mandatory sign in.

General Tom

Is it "bullsh-tting" to call bullsh-t on Elliott Wave Theory?

Will you silence disagreement?

General Tom

How many billions has Elliott Wave made you, Ashish? Would it be traumatic for you to learn that it's bogus? What would it take to convince you?

Listen, folks, I don't think Prechter and Neely and the other salesman are much worse than those other hokum artists who appear on CNBC, often under the authority and prestige of university professorships and chairmanships and weath. I want to warn people away from ANYONE's crystal ball. But I'll start with the jokers who sell their services!

Michael

General Tom,

Well said.
But the "Kool-Aid" drinkers just can't seem to put down their drink. They obviously weren't anything more than toddlers during Prechter's "Lost Decade" that started back in 1993. They have no idea how much Prechter has cost traders. No idea at all. To simply ignore his track record during that period of time is highly reflective of a "cult" and its following.

Mamma Boom Boom

>>I signed up, but I can't figure out what I got. Seem like one giant commercial.

Posted by: Ned Bushong | Thursday, November 05, 2009 at 08:27 AM<<

Well, they finally have my freebie working. Only took them about 30 hrs.

Has a nice feel to it.

Eventhorizon

Yelnick,

Is this free week happening? When I go to EWI's site, I see nothing about it.

General Tom

"Free Week" is not free. It costs time, energy, memory, and the increased likelihood of losing something like thirty bucks a month. Also the increased likelihood of losing lots of money to brokers, specialists, insiders, those privy to inside info, and people who play the odds more carefully than do you.

DG

Mandelbrot wrote a rebuttal that hit the nail on the head: Science shouldn't depend upon a particular person to make itself known.

Which is why no one ever called "Newtonian physics" "Newtonian", right? Wait, that's not right.

If a model has integrity, those who come to know it better should converge on ideas, not diverge.

Which is why all climatolgists agree, right? Wait, that's not right.

Dude, you're making a leap in comparing attempts to analyze financial markets with analysis of physical phenomena. They are two different categories of analysis. While I agree with some of what you're saying, that final step you're trying to get people to make doesn't seem logical.

Anyway, I have said, oh, about a hundred times on this site alone, that wave theory's best feature is its risk management and ability to provide the practitioner with some way of narrowing the range of near-term trading possibilities in financial markets from practically infinite to a finite set of hypotheticals. It does this better than any other technical analysis system because it is all-encompassing and solely based on price action.

The real choice isn't between trading a wave-based technique or trading other types of technical analysis, it's between trading a wave-based technique and not trading at all, just buying and holding or dollar-cost averaging.

G2

It does this better than any other technical analysis system because it is all-encompassing and solely based on price action

I admire your persistance in puffing up the positive but the fact remains that your favoured methodology has lost money for its followers during one of the biggest bull runs in the history of the market.

Mamma Boom Boom

>>your favoured methodology has lost money for its followers during one of the biggest bull runs in the history of the market.<<

?

DG

Ned,

He's talking about the fact that Neely has lost money over the past 7 months.

G2,

Look, there's no question about that and the facts are the facts. I told you that I think there were implementation problems that, had those subjective factors been put aside and the rules followed more strictly, would have lead to about break-even performance or a slightly positive performance. I'm not going to run back and do the math, but I basically laid out the basics for you, which are that Neely should have gone long in early April with a trailing stop that probably wouldn't have been hit until mid-May and then should have gone long in July and then been stopped out in August.

Again, if you aren't familiar with why this is so, you may just focus on Neely's failure to actually make those trades as a failure of the methodology, rather than those trades being implied by the methodology, but not taken.

Michael

"It does this better than any other technical analysis system because it is all-encompassing and solely based on price action."

You can't be serious.

Please feel free to supply your trading track record and how your interpretation of Elliott Wave Theory was turned into an ACTIONABLE TRADING PLAN and methodology. Don't forget to include all of those "alternate" wave counts that waver's are so infamous for . . . along with all of the "after-the-fact" changes in the wave count.


DG

Michael,

You can't possibly think I give a rat's tail what you think.

Read "Mastering Elliott Wave" a dozen or so times (I've read it probably 15 times at this point), then you and I can have a conversation about wave methods, including the issue of alternate counts. Until then, you don't have the background to even be worth talking to when it comes to wave theory, especially if you're already taking such a negative attitude. It's like having a conversation about your favorite baseball team with a guy who hates baseball and has decided he isn't going to change his mind. It's pointless.

If you want to take a shortcut to having that conversation, subscribe to Neely's S&P Trading service, sign up for my subscriber blog (I am not affiliated with Neely in any way, but I limit the blog to subscribers because we discuss his Trading alerts) and you will see it laid out every day. Almost every day there's an actionable set-up with well-defined risk and a rationale for why that set-up is preferred over other set-ups. I've had basically the same wave count since early August and have had the same "line in the sand" to "break" that count since early October. If the high from October ends up sticking, I will have called the top to within 60 cents on the SPY (I had 110.98 as my line in the sand and we topped at 110.32). If that top doesn't stick, then, yes, I will have to switch to an alternate count. That will be one switch in 4 months, if it happens this month. I don't think that's a huge deal, quite frankly. As I said, this is all on my blog and I have zero interest in reproducing any of it here, beyond my description of it. Since everyone who reads my blog knows about this site, anyone who wants to can verify this. And, so that I don't make it sound like this is all just my work, the people who post on my blog give me lots of great feedback and ideas on variations on the wave count and it's a real back-and-forth, without any name-calling or any negativity. We don't always get it right, but we no one seems to be under the illusion that such a thing is even possible.

Your problem is you think you know everything there is to know about people using wave theory from EWI, Kenny and Daneric. Those guys don't have the first clue about what Neely is doing, or if they do, they certainly haven't incorporated any of it in their wave counts. It's like thinking you know everything there is to know about medicine from seeing some guys do a blood-letting. Your knowledge of wave theory is limited and obsolete.

Eventhorizon

Michael,

I know you have said before that you don't think the readership here would benefit from learning about your trading methodologies, but how about you give it a try? I personally would be very interested to learn anything I could from someone who has worked with some of the folks you have referred to.

As for your recent comment regarding alternate counts .. let's say you use some other methodology to enter and manage a trade. Even though your approach has a positive expectation, for each proposed trade there is a non-zero probability that it will be a loser. Yet you take the trade with the understanding that overall your system will deliver.

It seems to me that Elliott, in whatever form, is more about trying to assess the risk-reward and odds at each potential entry. In that case, the favored count tells you something about the probablity of success and the rewards if you are correct and your alternate count tells you something about your risk of being wrong. Ex-post, if your primary count was wrong you have to change it - you have new information; how is that any different from, say, fundamental analysis? Personally, I don't find the alternate count thing a problem, it is part of the system.

I find much more to criticise using Mandelbrot's line of thinking. Too few people seem to understand the difference between fractals in math (which are well-ordered) and fractals in nature (which are chaotic). For instance, the East coast of the US from FL to ME clearly exhibits fractal characteristics that can be measured. This DOES NOT mean we can predict the coastline of Eastern Canada. We can only generate something that COULD be it, but the probabilities are overwhelminly against our being successfully.

This is one reason I find the Zoran Guyer work intriguing. It is much more basic "Can we detect the bifurcation from chaos to order and can we exploit it?". I look forward to seeing what comes of Yelnick's project.

Anyway, as I said above, I would be very interested to learn anything you might be willing to share about trading methodology.

DG

It seems to me that Elliott, in whatever form, is more about trying to assess the risk-reward and odds at each potential entry.

Yes, I look at wave theory as a "trade generating machine", one of the features of which is a built-in detector for when the trade is has generated is incorrect.

I trade the 3X ETF TZA. At today's low, we hit the 61.8% retrace of a significant move (yes, yes, I know about slippage and volatility drags in the leveraged ETFs, so I know it isn't exact). Due to my wave count, I was looking for that level to hold. When it did, and we did a sizable move up and then reversed, I counted the move up as a wave-A or wave-1 (either way, the trade implications are the same at this point). I then proceeded to apply wave labels at one degree smaller, as the "retrace of the retrace" started to play out. Eventually, I was able to narrow in on 13.15 and 12.86 as two points of significance in my wave count. Given how much time had elapsed and the potential for the "retrace of the retrace" to be over, I wanted to be long above 13.15 and stand aside under 12.86. Eventually, the long trade triggered and we then spent the rest of the day in a range, meaning the breakout above 13.15 wasn't "real", but we never triggered my exit by going below 12.86, either. So, I've got a trade whose risk is exactly known and which I entered because one of the pieces of my wave-count "puzzle" (that 61.8% retrace) stayed in place when tested. If we go below 12.86, I will exit. If we go back above 13.15, I will re-assess my exit point, perhaps moving it higher. If the trade goes my way on Monday and I can move my stop up to lock in a profit, I can either do that or I can "pyramid" in the trade, using my new stop as the point at which my original size plus what I add when I "pyramid" will leave me at break-even if hit.

WTF more can a trader ask for? You've got Fib-based "lines in the sand" (they could also be "structure-based", and, in fact, my 13.15 entry price was and anyone who can read an intraday chart could see why) and an exact entry and exit point.

Also, notice that at no point does my trade require that I have (and I see this thrown around here so often it's ridiculous) a "crystal ball". That's NOT what trading with wave theory is about, at least not primarily. When a pattern has fulfilled all of the requirements of wave theory and is coming to an end, there are times when an analyst can make an accurate forecast based on that information.

Bite me

What freeweek??? I just see a pile of adds. Yelnick, do you get kickback for directing traffic because it seems you push people there when there is nothing?

Michael

"If you want to take a shortcut to having that conversation, subscribe to Neely's S&P Trading service."

DG, I was a subscriber to your beloved Neely earlier this year during the Spring and Summer and found that he got himself involved in a tremendous amount of "whipsaws".

Do you not recall the infamous Neely call that the June 11th high would be the TOP FOR THE YEAR and not be taken out and how he was short looking for 750 or something like that? Or how about the call to 950 within just 1-3 weeks, only to abandon that call and get whip-sawed again?

How could you ignore this, or the amount of "whipsaws" that he got his subscribers involved in?

Kong

Which is why all climatolgists agree, right? Wait, that's not right.

But you won't get one calling for a blizzard and another a heat wave.

min

>>"Free Week" is not free. It costs time, energy, memory, and the increased likelihood of losing something like thirty bucks a month. Also the increased likelihood of losing lots of money to brokers, specialists, insiders, those privy to inside info, and people who play the odds more carefully than do you.

Posted by: General Tom | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 01:03 PM<<

Hey General Tom cool it already. You know some of us try to make a small fortune relying on the Pied Prechter reliably leading the masses to the wrong side of the trade. You're bad for my business. SHHHHH!

min

>>It does this better than any other technical analysis system because it is all-encompassing and solely based on price action

I admire your persistance in puffing up the positive but the fact remains that your favoured methodology has lost money for its followers during one of the biggest bull runs in the history of the market.

Posted by: G2 <<


I have used Elliott to make some pretty spectacular trades. BUT I also make it a point to not cop Prechter's way of thinking. I also use other tools to side check and confirm then reconfirm what I "think" I see.

All in all I have found that it isn't usually the "TOOL" (like E-Waves) that is faulty but the weilder of the tool that has shortcomings (like Prechter and I don't include others as I don't have sufficient experential data to comment on onyone but Prechter).

Both DG and G2 have different pieces of the puzzle. Both of you are right in different ways.

DG

Michael,

What in the world makes you think I am ignoring anything? When I did my due diligence on Neely, I found data that leads me to conclude that his average annual returns since he started doing this in the late 1980s are around 35%. RenTech earns about that, but Neely does it without the hedge fund fees. I also went back and researched specific calls he had made in e-mails to his e-mail database list and public-domain interviews he'd done, matching back his views with the actual outcomes. This research satisfied me that he had a durable edge on the markets, even though in any specific trade, there was a positive probability that he was wrong.

Again, I do not labor under the illusion that there is such a thing as a sure thing in the markets, but if there's a method that can earn me 30%+/year over time, I'd be stupid not to be interested in what that person thinks.

As I have gotten deeper into the methodology, I have started making my own trades independent of Neely's and I have had some disagreements with him over the past few months. Although hindsight is 20/20, even so, if it had been me, I would not have made that June call because of the specifics of the wave count and the potential for that particular formation to turn out to be another formation that allowed for one more high. I know that's a very generic thing to say, but I'm not going to go into a bunch of technical detail. Ironically, the danger of us reaching the levels he was calling for in June are not gone, but I doubt he'll be making any public announcement of that.

At the very least, NeoWave allows the illusion of complete understanding of the market, down to the penny. That illusion, while not necessarily of any use in forecasting, is essential to risk management, which is where professional traders spend most of their time. Forecasting and market calls are a mug's game, but risk management enables you to "stay in the game" long enough that you catch a couple of major trades per year and ride them. It's like that old military saying "Amateurs talk strategy and pros talk logistics", only in trading it's "Amateurs talk forecasts and pros talk risk management".

General Tom Thumb

Funny post, min.

Newtonian Physics was a bunch of mathematical models that were a huge improvement on the previous ones. Anyone who wanted to apply Newtonian physics could do it and come up with the same result. It didn't matter whether it was Newton, Paganini, Lee Harvey Oswald, a computer, or a trained cockatoo. Newton didn't hide his methods or claim that they required his trained eye or expertise or Psychology Degree from Yale or appearance on crappy TV and radio shows.

Climatologists disagree but any worth their salt has a model they will show you. If their model is stochastic at least it is explicit in its assignment of probabilities. It doesn't require an artful eye or revealed genius in a $30 a month crystal ball newsletter.

Look at all the rich folks on this forum. They're swimmin' in money, aren't they? They have so much money from reading Prechter and Frost and Neely and Eliades and Roubini and Black Swan Guy and Marc Faber and all whichever bozo du jour they read that they can buy and sell Buffett many times over.

Elliott Wave is garbage, just as Greenspan and Roubini and Jeremy Siegel and Harry Dent and everyone else who claims to know where the economy is headed is GARBAGE. Do not be suckered into thinking anyone has the answers. It's all inside information, vigarish, and luck. Mostly luck!

yelnick

Bite Me, I only get a success fee if someone actually signs up for something, not for mere clicks. Sorry the Free Week doesn't seem to work for you. If their Free Week promos are bogus, I will stop referring to them. I do not see what you see since I have been cookied up and so when I show up I see the subscriber data (a subscription I have to pay full retail for)

Bite me

Yelnick, thanks for the reply. I appreciate your blog. Yes, there is no access to the subscribed services for "free week". It isn't even on their home page that "free week" is on. I am unsure how you are informed by EWI of "free week". It may start next Wednesday?

Bite me

Ignore above seems to be working now. Problem must be between the seat and the keyboard.

DG

Both DG and G2 have different pieces of the puzzle. Both of you are right in different ways.

Posted by: min | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 04:36 PM

--------------------------------------------------------

min,

You probably remember that I typically agree with much of what you say, but I have to disagree here. As far as I can tell, all G2 is saying is "Neely missed a big run", which doesn't really give me any help in figuring out how to trade.

I don't know what to tell people, really. Some people are so dead against Elliott Wave in general that there's no point in engaging on the finer points of NeoWave vs. EWI vs. TonyC vs. Zoran vs. whomever. Others are so sure that EWI is the only way E-wave gets done and because they suck (or, if you're an optimist, they have sucked), it sucks. Others want to play the "gotcha" game and woe if you've ever missed a single forecast because that invalidates your entire approach (I wonder if they are that critical of their own methods, but whatever). Others seem to think that one should never own a single share because it's all BS anyway. One wonders how they feel getting .05% in those money market funds.

I'm just glad I have my own blog where we all share the basic assumption that Neely has something of value to say, rather than all this BS debate about wave theory in general. I still don't understand why half of the posters even bother posting here when they clearly don't even think trading is worthwhile in any way, shape or form. The should just go to the "Buy and Hold Forum" and be done with it.

DG

But you won't get one calling for a blizzard and another a heat wave.

Posted by: Kong | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 04:23 PM
---------------------------------------------------------

Look, it's an analogy about models dealing with complicated systems. Does everyone using fundamental analysis agree on the market's direction? Why would you hold users of technical analysis to a different standard?

Elliott Wave is the language of the market. Some people write doggrel with it and some write Shakespeare. That's just how it is.

yelnick

Event, you should get a landing page which says on the right in a big button Join Club EWI and get free access. Click on the text that should have been a box in the top of the right column of this blog to get to the landing page, then look for the big button in the right side of that page. Let me know if it works

yelnick

Event, I just did the rond trip. CLick on the upper right text on my blog that talks of free access, then click on the BLUE button below the red star on the right of the landing page, then join Club EWI and use their special password. The STU for Fri shows up, and when you get it recent back issues *should* also show up. The Free Week goes at least thru the Monday STU, and maybe Wed (I am not sure of that).

min

DG;

When I wrote my post about how you and G2 were both right, I had not read all the argument that followed. I had read upto this point when I posted.

>>It does this better than any other technical analysis system because it is all-encompassing and solely based on price action (DGs post)

I admire your persistance in puffing up the positive but the fact remains that your favoured methodology has lost money for its followers during one of the biggest bull runs in the history of the market. (G2 post)

Posted by: G2 | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 01:39 PM<<

I have no first hand experience with Neely and didn't even know there was a 7 month streak of less than stellar calls, so I was not thinking in those terms.

"Biggest Bull Run" Made me think of what Michael calls "the lost decade" where Prechter missed a 500% Dow advance. I was thinking in terms of the multitude of Prechter followers (myself included for the first 3 years of trading)suckered into Preck's misguided convictions. Many of those suckered have now equated "Prechtorism" with the E-Wave tool itself being flawed and unworkable or somehow related to being a perma-bear.

My point was that the tool is not flawed but the wielder of the tool (Prechter in this case) was the problem.

I have found E-Waves a valid tool and have made it work for me even though it's most Notorious proponent has really sullied it's reputation. Neally is not included since I know nothing of him first-hand.

You seem to make E-waves work for you in a way somewhat differnet from me; and you've been saying such for nearly 2 years that I am aware of on this blog; so I can only asume that Neely has done right by you at least in giving you tools adequate to making a viable number of profitable trading decisions in spite of a seven month bad run. (It's very different with Prechter save for 2008 and 2009 it seems.)

I respect your defense of something that works and know it is possible because I have acquired, by hook or by crook, something similar although different. Having a successful trading method is priceless no matter how it is acheived.

Always count on me to stay fundamentally neutral on people I have no first hand knowledge of.

The comments to this entry are closed.