The Stock Market

[midas]

Midas - If memory serves me correctly, I dont think Parvis commited to[uS] markets being in 'Bull markets'? He merely suggested they might be, with some caveats.

I have to disagree . I dont see any caveats here :-

In Post #1829 on 2010-05-20 Parvis wrote :-

“Midas

Every "rebound" tends to be "technical" at first or is perceived as such until more buying comes in to "resume the uptrend". What I see at present is a good "tradeable move up" - which very well could be the end of this "turmoil".

Interpreting charts - beyond my own personal "theory" - I see potential problems ahead. In other words - I can see we could go back to todays lows - after this coming substantial move up. However - I am not in the "Crash camp" nor even "Bear Market".

In mid April - I would have agreed with those expecting potentially a big drop - but now I think we had a "big drop".”

I interpreted the words highlighted in blue as meaning he saw no possibility of a substantial fall in the market ( eg. to 8-9,000 level )

[midas]

Thats lovely Parvis, but allow me to simplify for those of us who are pragmatic:

TV has graciously recieved from you 3 bad bull calls, and one good bear call(ignoring the fact you edited the post, said "we could have another 100+ DJI points up" etc).

Badge - My "dilemma" is always – if I had said on Wednesday after the close that we are going to have a substantial decline (which I knew) – you would have told me "wrong again DJI went up 100+ points on Thursday" (I actually use SPX).

Therefore I intentionally mentioned the decline on Thursday AFTER the close - fully realizing – the safest time to get in on the short side - was Thursday just BEFORE the close – and the best time to get out of a long position was Thursday at the beginning of the day.

Then why not simply state on Wednesday 'we are going to have a substantial decline, in 1 or 2 days'? It all seems very convaluted, again, Mr Parvis.

My model suggest stocks are clearly heading down for now(hence my wanting to short y'day) until y'days highs are breached, so my focus is on Support areas, which I find are usually extremely accurate(apart of course from y'day but then again is the equivilant of being 2 SPX handles out considered inaccurate? It is as far as P+L is concerned!)

Good luck

" seems very convaluted, again " its not convaluted its heads I win tails you lose

Edited June 5, 2010 by midas

[Parvis]

Badge - TV has "graciously" received from me 1 incorrect call - which was very doubtful from me - namely just before the 1000 point decline - just before my European trip. You have "graciously" called me "wrong again" the morning (before the recovery) we went another 100 or so points lower after my "bullish call" the day before - which I did not foresee - but certainly was immaterial in the "long run" for trading (the day of the lowest low - so far). I know of no other.

Even now you emphasize my comment - that we could have an early up Friday - and yes I specified it could be 100+ points per resistance level (example of traditional Technical Analysis which appears to be used by the more succesfull posters on this thread). My very objective on this thread is to get negative feedback - the correct criticism always stands out - the incorrect (or untruthful) is just nonsense.

I congratulate you - if you have a model - that tells you EXACT levels to be reached - which apparently failed - or you have just missed - this time. Obviously "your model" appears to be based on "traditional Technical Analysis" such as reading "levels of resistance". I do not "follow" traditional Technical Analysis but rather I read the sentiment of the Market (but there have been ridiculing "nonsensical" comments on this statement also).

Edited June 5, 2010 by Parvis

[midas]

I do not "follow" traditional Technical Analysis but rather I read the sentiment of the Market (but there have been ridiculing "nonsensical" comments on this statement also).

Noun: sentiment sen-ti-munt

A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"my sentiment differs from yours";

While you persistently go on about “ sentiment ” , how meaningful is that sentiment when the sheeple may be basing their

opinions based on fabricated lies and distorted statistics ? . I mean listen to the utter drivel that came from Obama’s mouth after the poor jobs report ? He would have been better to keep his mouth closed . If you believe in “ sentiment “ that is fed by propaganda to brainwash the sheeple then its no wonder your predictions are so sporadic

Edited June 6, 2010 by midas

[badge]

[...........,..........,......,....,...........,.........,........,......]

Obviously "your model" appears to be based on "traditional Technical Analysis" such as reading "levels of resistance". I do not "follow" traditional Technical Analysis but rather I read the sentiment of the Market (but there have been ridiculing "nonsensical" comments on this statement also).

Nope.

It seems your poor track record of gauging market sentiment is not exclusive to market sentiment.

I could refer to my areas of interest as resistance, support, sentiment extremes, fear/greed parameters, accumulation/distribution levels, profit-taking/stake-building, reactionary targets, hedges, continuation/reversal strategy, pivots, trend-changes pockets, Arthurs... after all, would a rose by any other name still smell so sweet?

In anycase Parvis, you should carry on believing and doing whatever makes you happy, thats the most important point.

[Parvis]

Noun: sentiment sen-ti-munt

A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"my sentiment differs from yours";

Midas - "by George you've got it" - It is sentiment that moves the Market (purchasing or liquidating - money moves). To be able to follow "sentiment" you essentially need "mathematical models" - as you put it - "squiggles". I am certain most of the advisors you follow - use "squiggles" and talk about "fundamentals" as a "smoke-screen".

You may be aware that the human mind is unable to think "3 (or more)-dimensionally - logically". A simple example:

1) multiply any single digit number by any single digit number without calculator - no problem - right?

2) multiply any 2-digit number by any 2 digit number in your head - 99.5% (my estimate) of educated individuals are unable to do that.

3) multiply any 3 digit number by any 3 digit number in your head 1 in 1 million of educated individuals MAY BE able to do that.

As this relates to Economic date - your mind MAY BE able to evaluate a simple cause and effect scenario but is unable to come to a certain logical conclusion as soon as there are "multiple causes". For that - Scientists, Economics professors etc etc etc - use mathematic models - as you put in "squiggles" (and they still disagree amongst themselves).

Fundamental analysis in itself has its use - but primarily only to evaluate individual companies - where simple cause and effect is still more pertinent.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Parvis

[Abrak]

Noun: sentiment sen-ti-munt

A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"my sentiment differs from yours";

Midas - "by George you've got it" - It is sentiment that moves the Market (purchasing or liquidating - money moves). To be able to follow "sentiment" you essentially need "mathematical models" - as you put it - "squiggles". I am certain most of the advisors you follow - use "squiggles" and talk about "fundamentals" as a "smoke-screen".

You may be aware that the human mind is unable to think "3 (or more)-dimensionally - logically". A simple example:

1) multiply any single digit number by any single digit number without calculator - no problem - right?

2) multiply any 2-digit number by any 2 digit number in your head - 99.5% (my estimate) of educated individuals are unable to do that.

3) multiply any 3 digit number by any 3 digit number in your head 1 in 1 million of educated individuals MAY BE able to do that.

As this relates to Economic date - your mind MAY BE able to evaluate a simple cause and effect scenario but is unable to come to a certain logical conclusion as soon as there are "multiple causes". For that - Scientists, Economics professors etc etc etc - use mathematic models - as you put in "squiggles" (and they still disagree amongst themselves).

Fundamental analysis in itself has its use - but primarily only to evaluate individual companies - where simple cause and effect is still more pertinent.

Yes well verbally right but not mathematically - any old fart can take two 4 digit numbers - say 1000 and 3000 - and multiply them together in their head. You will result in a one dimensional solution.

However, once 'causality' comes into the equation things certainly get squiggly as equations go non-linear.

And I 100% agree that while people can probably analyse those equations, causality etc at the individual stock level they cannot at the aggregate market level. (well of course they can but they would be wasting their time.)

[Parvis]

A simple example:

1) multiply any single digit number by any single digit number without calculator - no problem - right?

2) multiply any 2-digit number by any 2 digit number in your head - 99.5% (my estimate) of educated individuals are unable to do that.

3) multiply any 3 digit number by any 3 digit number in your head 1 in 1 million of educated individuals MAY BE able to do that.

Yes well verbally right but not mathematically - any old fart can take two 4 digit numbers - say 1000 and 3000 - and multiply them together in their head. You will result in a one dimensional solution.

Abrak - correct of course - in my example I should have said any number NOT including "0"

[zorro1]

This ch artist is brilliant. A possible long term short coming up..

The Dow is at a critical watershed. Having found support at 10000, completion of a bullish divergence on Twiggs Money Flow (13-week) would signal the end of the correction. Failure of support at 9900, however, would warn of a bear market.

[Abrak]

A simple example:

1) multiply any single digit number by any single digit number without calculator - no problem - right?

2) multiply any 2-digit number by any 2 digit number in your head - 99.5% (my estimate) of educated individuals are unable to do that.

3) multiply any 3 digit number by any 3 digit number in your head 1 in 1 million of educated individuals MAY BE able to do that.

Yes well verbally right but not mathematically - any old fart can take two 4 digit numbers - say 1000 and 3000 - and multiply them together in their head. You will result in a one dimensional solution.

Abrak - correct of course - in my example I should have said any number NOT including "0"

Actually what I meant is the underlying mathematical problem is...

1) The increasing number of variables not the 'value' or number of digits in the variables

2) 'Causality' also implies non-linearity in the equation. Say you have two variables 'milk' and 'wheatabix' - you use the milk with your wheatabix. If the price of milk doubles and the price of wheatabix halves, you dont buy more wheatabix because wheatabix without milk is rubbish. So the answer is that you end up buying 'porridge'.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Abrak

[Parvis]

Understood - my objective was "simpler". I wanted it to be understood by all - including those not being familiar with Mathematical Logic - AND - show the limitation the human mind has - without the use of Mathematics (squiggles).

The above chart - from Zorro 1 - again shows that when money flows into the Market the Market goes up. When money dries up - the Market has a correction.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Parvis

[midas]

Understood - my objective was "simpler". I wanted it to be understood by all - including those not being familiar with Mathematical Logic - AND - show the limitation the human mind has - without the use of Mathematics (squiggles).

The above chart - from Zorro 1 - again shows that when money flows into the Market the Market goes up. When money dries up - the Market has a correction.

Parvis

Are you able / willing to explain how your mathematcial logic is able to decipher this ?

“The market deteriorated a lot on Friday and the decline was logical after the unemployment data and comments by Hungary,” said Arnaud Scarpaci, a fund manager at Agilis Gestion in Paris, which oversees about $150 million. “Today Hungary reversed its statements. We could have a technical rebound.”

Hungary’s government reversed course over the weekend, saying there was no danger of default after it spent two days telling the world the nation was at risk of a Greece-like crisis. "

So just like that they waved their magic wand it was over .......

[ray23]

The one thing I have learned those far emotion, has lot to do with what happens markets.

[Parvis]

Midas - If Wallstreet had not sold off because of the Employment-data Friday - it would have sold off because the sun didn't come out until late in the day - or maybe it was a Full-moon day or whatever.

Yes we are having a rebound - because Hungary is still in Europe - but a "tradeable bottom" - not so fast my dear - they are waiting for me - I am not in it yet.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Parvis

[midas]

[flying]

I read that the TRIN spike for Friday was one of the top 4 highest in 50 years.....

Interesting for the chartist?

Arms Index - ChartSchool - StockCharts.com

[midas]

now these squigly lines make sense

[zorro1]

now these squigly lines make sense

He he.. after 44,000 posts and missing the 2nd biggest rally in history Midas is on the verge of being proven right all along

[Parvis]

He he.. after 44,000 posts and missing the 2nd biggest rally in history Midas is on the verge of being proven right all along

Hehehehe............. - and wrong again - "I told yuh sooooo"

Edited June 8, 2010 by Parvis

[lannarebirth]

Gaps

[zorro1]

Gaps

If one looks at all gaps over the last 20 years they have all been filled. If you trade by gapping you wouldnt have made a bean

[Abrak]

Gaps

If one looks at all gaps over the last 20 years they have all been filled. If you trade by gapping you wouldnt have made a bean

Why do gaps always get filled?

While I know little about technicals I always look at them. 'Key reversals' for instance are I would say at least 90% right. I understand the logic in them especially as a reversal of a bubble or a burst. I just dont see why a gap should really be filled.

In fact analytically I would have thought a 'gap' indicated a 'fundamental change in event' (in that there were no buyers or sellers at previous levels).

Edited June 8, 2010 by Abrak

[nakachalet]

Gaps

If one looks at all gaps over the last 20 years they have all been filled. If you trade by gapping you wouldnt have made a bean

we trade gaps with certain predefined preconditions, using gap fills as you mentioned....

also using the axiom that all gaps are eventually filled theory....

we trade both shorts and longs.... depending on the 3-6 mos range....

there are profits to be made.... still

the average gain/loss ratio, since 1992 has been 68% to 32% (futures market--gold, crude, currencies et al)....

but gap trading does not happen every day though.... it has been hair raising at times....

Edited June 8, 2010 by nakachalet

[zorro1]

Gaps

If one looks at all gaps over the last 20 years they have all been filled. If you trade by gapping you wouldnt have made a bean

we trade gaps with certain predefined preconditions, using gap fills as you mentioned....

also using the axiom that all gaps are eventually filled theory....

we trade both shorts and longs.... depending on the 3-6 mos range....

there are profits to be made.... still

the average gain/loss ratio, since 1992 has been 68% to 32% (futures market--gold, crude, currencies et al)....

but gap trading does not happen every day though.... it has been hair raising at times....

Agreed a well placed gap trade can yield 50% gains in one day. Its hair raising and patience beyond my scope. saw a gap get filled with MAK last week. Out of the blue dropped from 30c to 20c back to 28c. not a bad gain

IMO there are good trading opportunities now as the dow should retest 10,000 before it attempts a head back south

[lannarebirth]

If one looks at all gaps over the last 20 years they have all been filled. That is not true, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'm guessing you made it up.

If you trade by gapping you wouldnt have made a bean

Well, I use a lot of methodologies including trading for gap fills, especially intraday. It's like the easiest tade ever and its made me lots of beans.

OK, without resorting to an internet search, tell me all you know about Gap Theory...............

Edited June 9, 2010 by lannarebirth

[Parvis]

Confucious say:

All gaps get filled - except those that do not.

[lannarebirth]

Gaps

If one looks at all gaps over the last 20 years they have all been filled. If you trade by gapping you wouldnt have made a bean

Why do gaps always get filled? They do not always get filled, but they usually do.

While I know little about technicals I always look at them. 'Key reversals' for instance are I would say at least 90% right. I understand the logic in them especially as a reversal of a bubble or a burst. I just dont see why a gap should really be filled. Almost all opening gaps get filled in a relatively short period of time. It's like a volume vacuum in a chart and price generally likes to test all levels. There's more to it concerning futures action and individual stocks opening, but that's the gist of it. Like say the $SPX gaps up because of XOM's news of blowout earnings. Well, that's one stock in one sector of a 500 stock index. The futures may "gap up" on the news, but 500 individual stocks need to open and balance their order flow. More often than not it something to sell into.

In fact analytically I would have thought a 'gap' indicated a 'fundamental change in event' (in that there were no buyers or sellers at previous levels). Well, there are all kinds of gaps,, breakaway gaps, continuation gaps, measuring gaps, exhaustion gaps. The first and last one are not uncommon to see on those "key reversals" which you DO understand. None of this is cast in stone, but it is an observed maket phenomenon that has creates a market behaviour whereby you can assess probabilities.

[zorro1]

Confucious say:

All gaps get filled - except those that do not.

In Thailand all the gaps will NOT get filled, just to many of em

[Naam]

Confucious say:

All gaps get filled - except those that do not.

In Thailand all the gaps will NOT get filled, just to many of em

Confucious also say: "old man who want fill often many gaps should buy shares of Pfizer."

[zorro1]

Confucious say:

All gaps get filled - except those that do not.

In Thailand all the gaps will NOT get filled, just to many of em

Confucious also say: "old man who want fill often many gaps should buy shares of Pfizer."

Went Naam fishing and got me a good one. Geez your hard to flush out LOL

Sorry lana cant reply without searching the internet. You gapped me on that one