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.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: philv who wrote (21154)	6/11/2004 5:40:57 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 82194

Phil > Am I correct that you invented or were very early with this method I don't think there's anything unique about it. In fact, it's a very standard form of arithmetical analysis. If I have anything to say for my particular technique it is that I was lucky to hit upon a method that could apply to the market. What I found was that the data have to be very infrequent and also very long term. Also, I don't think others use it in the way I do -- as an "overbought-oversold" indicator -- and not as a method of trend analysis. Further, there's a lot of "fuzzy logic" built into it (those are all the marks at the top and bottom of the chart). By running the whole series of charts and printing them I can end up with a score for buying or selling depending on how many graphs are topping or bottoming. And, as you see, it works only at the extremes of any particular distribution. In the middle it tells nothing > I recall Gold Tutor was asking you about some help, and was very complimentary, which is not her usual forte. Yes, she knows about it. I remember telling her in December 03 that "it" said gold looked like it had topped out. Of course, as you can see from the graph, there's a lot of subjectivity. > I understand your hesitation regarding advice, and thank you for posting your work and conclusions. My pleasure. I merely tried to justify where the $300 came from because it does seem so drastic, especially in the circumstances where "experts" are proclaiming $480. This time I must admit that the market has been very difficult compared to previous tops, because it keeps on going up. And it may still do. That's why I keep believing that "this time it's different". It's only in retrospect that one can really see if it was right or not. However, if it is, then that adds confidence to the model and makes me feel that it does demonstrate a truth. For your information, this is the basic chart of the analysis I showed previously. I sure you will recognise the actual gold price graph (see below) as the solid line and the central dotted one is the regression. The statistical parameters of +/- 2 standard deviations are the top and bottom dotted lines and the assumption is that the price remains between the two lines and can move from the top to the bottom one, which is actually below $300 at the moment. img66.photobucket.com The idea is to "capture" the whole price distribution within the above-mentioned statistical parameters which, as you see, has been done. Then, the probabilities which were shown in the previous chart are likely to be accurate. Extreme values are unsustainable. That's where the probability, or rather improbability, comes in. Here's a long term chart of POG for reference. stockcharts.com[w,a]dallynay[dm][pd200,2]