Natal Forecast Using EMGP

[ForJL]

Okay so how did we do today? As always nothing is ever perfect but if you understand the laws of infinite potential the forecast did well. There was a fairly substantial drop in price that began around 1120 that the forecast didn’t pick up but the secondary indicator on the chart got perfectly (more on that in a moment). There were also a few areas on the chart where we could have run into what I call the “matchstick problem”. So what is the matchstick problem? I covered this on the old forum some time ago but will touch on it briefly here now for those who are not familiar with it. Because of the law of infinite potential we can expand or contract the energy waves indefinitely by multiplying by 2 for expansions and dividing by 2 for contractions. Following this method generally yields no issues for energy wave expansions. Energy wave contractions are a different story. If for instance an energy wave is short when measured in time we can pretty much produce an energy wave of any size to fit our needs. If I had the time and enough matchsticks I could trace out a pattern hundreds of miles long of any shape you could imagine with a fair degree of accuracy. So depending on the energy wave in the prediction the user can run into the same issue and in essence predict nothing. There is nothing worse in trading then allowing yourself to see just what you want to see. Ergo “This above all, to thine own self be true”. Act I Scene III The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denamrk. Just felt like throwing that in. When I have more time I will revisit the issue and explain how to avoid this kind of trap. Bottom line though is I believe this was a very strong forecast.



Now let me pivot back to that secondary indicator. It is nothing more then an Aspect study that I run which in this case is based on a crash of’87 model. Now if you recall from this mornings post the Natal Forecast was based on the low of the 20th century. Stop for a second and think of what I just said there. One is based on a significant high and the other a significant low. It is my belief that there are two very large and very different energy signatures vying to dominate the market.

[You see I build these models on situational circumstance. While I know most of you guys use natal dates my research has shown situational historic dates to yield superior results. That is not to say that Natal’s don’t have their place in this kind of work. Quite the contrary, they are very important. However if you want to take these forecasts to a different level I suggest you research history.]

In the end only one will come out on top. Which one will it be of course is the $64,000 question. Over the weekend I had that discussion with a good friend of mine, trader extraordinaire, and member of this board, Joseph Feinberg. We agreed that we could have been at a very long term cyclical top back in February that could result in repercussions that could last years. While I am tempted to get into some of the fundamentals here that would certainly go beyond the purview of this thread. Perhaps some other time, some other thread.



Anyhow I’m all over the place here so allow me to get back to the Aspect study. It was golden! Out of nine calls eight were on the money! Out of those eight you can make the argument that six were for fairly substantial moves to boot! To say I was pleased with them would be an understatement. This is one of the reasons I decide to come back to Wave 59. It is a program like no other. There are just so many unique areas of research that can be done with it that can’t be done any where else. Get out of your comfort zone, think out of the box and there is no telling where you can take it! My guess is by now you guys can tell I had a really good day today … time to call it a night.

Best,
Joe

[ForJL]

Hi Guys,


I have decided to switch my primary market from the YM to the ES due to liquidity issues that have been effecting the volume analysis that I do. So while I make the transition some of the forecast models may be off until I iron things out. The approach is the same but each market has it own idiosyncrasies that must be dealt with. The forecast below is one of those first tries and needs to be treated with a high degree of skepticism. Going forward I hope to have things tightened up a bit.


Best

[ForJL]

Okay so there were some good things about yesterdays forecast and some that could have been better. Not bad for a first try. (First chart) Today's forecast (second chart) is a re-tooled model of the 20th century low. My experience with this is that it has a tendency to lose effectiveness as the day progresses but not to the point that it is unusable. Will that be how it works out today ... remains to be seen.

[ForJL]

As I said this morning, this one does have a habit of fading late though did hold some benefit to it. Personally I didn't pay much attention to it after @1100. It performed much better yesterday but decided to go with a different model at the time. So obviously it is not only difficult building these things but also difficult choosing the right one for the time.


The chart below covers the past two days and the raw NF is the red line. For whatever reason I forgot to put in the last energy wave but as you can see it would have inverted.

Joe

[ForJL]

I haven't done one of these in some time now so thought I would do one today. However while this has helped me quite a bit in taking money out of the marker these past few weeks it comes with a big caveat. That being that it's optimal forecast period should have expired early Monday morning yet it is still producing positive results. While trying to work out how long a forecast is valid is never easy this is really stitching it a bit. Still, it will be interesting to see how much further it can go.

Joe

[ForJL]

Unfortunately the forecast didn't last more then a couple of hours before it went off the rails. Disappointing but not very surprising. The odd thing about this forecast is just how long I have been using it. First from 092720 through 100720 (first chart), and then again from 101220 through last Friday (second chart). As I already pointed out in the previous post this is well past the optimal forecast period. The other thing of note here is the strong upward bias that can be seen in the raw prediction. Whether or not that means anything I really can't say as more analysis is needed.

Joe

[ForJL]

This one has me stumped! After posting on Friday the forecast seemingly went off the rails and expired … but did it … or did it just invert? If it did invert it did so in an area it is not supposed to. Inversions are only supposed to occur at the end of energy waves not midway through. So the question becomes once again, is it still a valid forecast? I will leave that for the reader to decide but would be very careful about this one.


There are two charts below with the first being the raw forecast. I have changed the colors for aesthetic purposes and as you can see we get the presumed inversion on Friday. The second chart shows the forecast with the proper harmonic modifications. It should be noted that the master planet on this forecast is Me and we are again focused on the ‘87 crash.


The funny thing about this is there is a part of me that wants it to be correct because at the end of the day it's all about making money. On the other hand there is a part of me that is quite annoyed because if it is still working I don’t know why. For now though I’ll take the money and figure things out later.

Best

[ForJL]

Judging by the views you guys seem to really like NF's. Okay, here is a more detailed forecast that I am using for today. It is the raw forecast without any harmonic adjustments. Note that we may have gone through a shift. Anyhow no warranties expressed or implied.

Joe

[ForJL]

Okay so this is how we wound up. As I noted in the previous post the forecast did shift ... about 35 minutes forward. Additionally it also inverted. At @1520 shifted back and inverted into the original forecast. If you had recognized this in real time you would have done quite well. I want to again point out that this is the raw forecast and no harmonic adjustments were used in this presentation.


Joe

[ForJL]

Same model, solid results, and again showing only the raw NF with no harmonic adjustments. There was one inversion around 1230. If you want to try and recreate this I suggest you look at the low of the 20th century and the '87 crash.

As a little aside I was asked how I get the prediction line to look so seamless as opposed to what you see at the right of the chart. All I do is take the rectangle tool with a white background setting and use it as an eraser. It's sort of cumbersome but it looks nicer.

Joe