Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lucretius who wrote (65528)	9/30/1999 6:47:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86076

ask yourself this: what is it, that NOBODY expects? answer: Dow 14,000 by the end of November....

To: Lucretius who wrote (65528)	9/30/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

Lucretius, >>>> , thus they laughed at Ralphi's proclamation of doom (Joe K on CNBC laughed at him and called him a contrarian indicator if i recall correctly). <<<< A friend of mine heard the same report and argued with me vehemently that the BEARS will now die and the market will shoot to the moon based on RALPHI been the contrarian indicator, and this person was a broker himself and darn serious. This person mentioned that RALPH was wrong 3-4 times on major move calls, so that is what he was basing his conclusion on. My response to him, was that statistically, it has no or little merit since statistically it would require a repeated pattern of 32 times. Basing a contrarian position on RALPH is not viable, at least not yet, unless he gets it wrong many more times. gggggggggggggggggggg Sooner or later he will get it right, and that comment has statistical merit. So shame on CNBC, which has a responsibility to its viewers to imply that RALPH is a contrarian indicator based on non-statistical evaluation. Im far from a supporter of RALPH, and frankly I do not have alot of respect for him. I just wanted to express caution towards comments which are disguised as having statistical merit, when they have really no true statistical merit. seeya