SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Classic TA Workplace
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ormsby who wrote (65036)1/31/2003 12:15:35 PM
From: bcrafty  Read Replies (2) of 209892
 
ormsby, the Armstrong cycle was widely discussed
here last November, and I remember Freep, John Madarasz and myself were among the discussion participants.

The main thing that we all remember from that discussion is that 11/7 did not turn out to be an important low as was suggested, so the idea that 3/18 will be an important turn date should be taken with a grain of salt. Although one discussion participant suggested that perhaps 11/7 would be an inversion (and would thus be a high instead of a low) that scenario did not come to pass either, as we reached our high 12/1.

I suggested that perhaps the cycle should get a plus/minus one month leeway (thus including the 10/10 low) since it is such a long cycle, but nothing in Armstrong's material suggests that such a leeway is called for, and the 1987 turn was on the exact date called for - except that it was an inversion.

The long and the short of all this is that the turn dates and the interpretation of them is still a matter of further discussion and interpretation.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News