Caldaro per Jan 31, '15:
"While our long term indicators suggest we have not even reached a Primary wave III high for this market, let alone a bull market high."
While is a conjunction which should be conjoined to something in his sentence. It's not. But it's Tony, so to continue ...
In his following sentence he writes, "We think it is prudent to at least entertain the Primary III count."
There he goes with that we thingy again, but let's move on to his entertainment of the Primary III count. (I wonder if he'll serve soft drinks with that entertainment.)
"History has shown that no indicators are perfect, and this market has been full of surprises since it began in 2009. With this in mind we have updated the DOW charts to display a potential Primary III completed at the early December high."
Yikes, another we thingy. And yes, there have been lots of surprises since 2009. But just exactly how are we to take Tony seriously when he's still puzzled about what potentially happened two months ago, especially when that's his opinion of the most probable outcome?
That begs the question, what is a most probable outcome? If there are two opinions, the most probable one is the one with a probability of being correct at least slightly over 50% of the time. That would be slightly better than a coin toss. If there are three opinions, its probability could be slightly better than 33.3%. If that's the case, it's probability of being wrong is quite high (much higher than 50%).
