|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
First let me say that I believe in cycles and in Hurst's work. I
use it in my work. The thing that bothers me about what you are doing
is that you are trying to take years and years of data and come up with
a norm. I haven't read Hurst in years, but I do remember that he
stated, and I agree, that cycles are variable. His 28 week cycle was plus
or minus. So after the first cycle, the second cycle can be longer
or shorter then first by a bar or two. If that is the case then over
a period of time, if you don't change the starting point of the cycle,
you will be all out of whack. Using very sophisticated mathematics
will not change that fact or give you a highly dependable result.
At least it hasn't for me, but then again, I am not a math whiz.
I have found, as an example, that a 10 bar cycle can have 8 bars for two
or three cycles and go to 10 and then 12 bars and come back down to 9 etc.
If you start at the beginning of the first 8 bar measurement with , by
the time you get to the end everything is out of sync. This is the
opinion of one low math achiever. Ira.
Clyde Lee wrote:
In
Hurst's epic discussion of market timing he made a study of thecyclic
elements in the market (DJIA I think).
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|