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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Systems, Strategies and Resources for Trading Futures -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (16773)	2/26/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: Patrick Slevin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44573

Judging by this post, Message 4486975 It's the same rule, then. It seems you have notched it up with the a/d but as you say in that post, the count starts over when the Index hits a new high so I don't see why that presumption is incorrect. After all, the Rule is based on a 55 day count from a previous High. Merely because the Count was less than 55 does not mean it could have been a count based on a dozen other cycle theories or some other rationale. After all, if the entire theory is based on a 55 day cycle off a high aren't you "making" it work by backing into it when you throw out the premise of it? I've heard of a lot of different cycles and to be honest that's the only one I recall somewhat exactly. I'm just of a mind that there may be some guy in OshKosh that has a 180 day Cycle based on something else and his worked on the day that the 55 failed to work per it's original design.