(OT but not really): Toppcats. One of the frustrating parts of talking to me is that I can't be completely open. I'm involved in Price and Trading Automation Research as part of an enterprise and am obligated to confidentiality. It doesn't seem fair that I pick the brains of others but can't allow others to pick mine. This too made Airedale mad--that someone might profit from what he shared freely. To that, let me say this: I haven't made a dime on anything he ever wrote, and if anything, he threw me off track many times because just when I would place a bet based on one of his market calls, it would not work. He was dead-on right often enough to make me a believer and wrong often enough to cause me to lose time and money.
The main thing I learned from Airedale is to cast a wide net studying the details of the indices and sectors, noting any variations and commonalities with a cold objectivity.
Airedale put years into promoting Hurst and inspiring people to learn the system. My perception is that Airedale was an absolutist when it came to Hurst. He had an almost religious fervor for the method, and for a few years there, the method worked with uncanny accuracy. It is also my perception the market started straying from the Hurst paradigm in December 2005/January 2006 and absolutely burst the bounds beginning in the fall of 2007 and continuing to the present. It is a matter of public record that Airedale struggled with his market calls in December 2005/January 2006, June through August 2006, and August 2007. These are just my opinions, but they are opinions I was *paid* to arrive at. Yes, I was paid to watch price movements full time and to assess the various methodologies for adherence to a scientific standard. While the Hurst methodology emerged as one of the most promising, it ultimately failed the standards we set.
Our first standard is the trading method must be the simplest, clearest explanation that accounts for all the facts of price moves.
The second standard is the trading method must set out the minimum number of clear, objective, verifiable rules that enable anyone to buy and sell with consistent profitability.
The third standard is the method must be independently verifiable and especially duplicatable.
I believe Hurst fails on all three counts even though it rose into the possible winner's circle. Elliot Wave doesn't even make it on the radar--too complicated, too fallible, so not verifiable. E-wave is filled with fascinating market observations that may prove useful from time to time, but we have found too much information actually takes away from a trader's ability to trade consistently and objectively--hence the emphasis on the simplest, clearest set of rules that produce consistent profits.
Hurst sets forth too much information, too many methods, and cycles that ultimately do not contribute to consistent, verifiable results. For example, let's say this really is the 80-week low. What good does it do to name it as such if it could fail on any given hour or day? Naming it the 80-week low sets up false expectations. I want the simplest set of rules that tell me to stay in the trade or to get out--and not one comma or period more.
I can't tell you how many hours and days I spent counting days and weeks trying to figure out where the 5-week, 10-week, 20-week, 40-week, 80-week, and 4-year cycles were. I saw analysts on this board and others arguing endlessly. Endlessly! This is it. No, that's not it. False expectations were set up. The market went up when it wasn't supposed to and down when it wasn't supposed to.
If I had been able to find two Hurst analysts who were on the same page at the same time and consistently made major market calls, I would not hold this opinion. It did not happen. I did see way too much fudging--the kind of fudging used by soothsayers and fortune tellers when fishing for information and then adjusting their story to make it look like they really knew something.
Now what about Arjunah's recent calls on oil and his warnings concerning the market last September? I believe Arjunah is a truth teller, a scientist, and a careful market analyst. I admire his work. I'm not saying Hurst is all bad--not at all. I am saying there are easier, more consistent ways to arrive at trading profitability. Trying to search for and count cycles when the market is in chaos can be a waste of time and a major distraction.
Here is how I came up with a solution that I like much better than anything I've seen published anywhere:
I examined the fine details of oscillators and moving average lines to identify the minimum criteria that absolutely makes a difference--the separates trades I should own from trades I should not. If two indicators tell me the same thing, I eliminate one of them. When it comes to moving averages lines, I use the minimum number that absolutely make a difference. Every detail of those lines makes a difference--the angle and where price is in relation. I wish I could share more but I can't. Not yet.
As I shared in a recent post, I have found that money management matters more than anything I know about the market or what direction it might take. Again, I have some proprietary information here I can't share, but I will give you a clue. Look for a money management system that delivers profits even if you are trading blind and clueless.
One more thing. In August 2007, I put out a hypothesis that if everyone caught on to one dominant trading method, it wouldn't work anymore. In my careful observations of price over a period of 10 years, I am convinced this hypothesis is true. Trading methods have a life cycle of sorts. During the ascendancy or growth stage--if there is any merit at all--they will achieve better and more pronounced results as more and more people follow the method. Then at the peak of the cycle, traders will begin to outwit the masses following the system, and the results will begin to fragment. Finally the system will fall apart altogether with occasional rebirths of usefulness and popularity.
Double
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
