Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
Successful traders are generally contrarians in the sense they do what the masses find difficult, and thereby profit from it.
It is hard enough being a technical analyst without getting flack for believing in "voodoo" or "tea leaf reading" from the fundamentalists.
It's even harder being an Elliott Wave analyst when the prominent spokesperson for Elliott Wave has been a permabear in a historic bull market.
Such errors are believed to be the fault of the theory used. But is that really so? I thought a review of my posts since January would be informative.
1. Kendle International (KNDL). HaveNoCents asked me for a wave outlook on this stock way back on February 08, 2006:
RMR elliot wave help please.
I provided both a bullish and bearish Elliott Wave outlook, and sided with the bears.
Bullish outlook:
Wave 3 is usually related to wave 1 by the ratio of 1.618, or 2.618. While there is nothing wrong with wave 3 ending here, there is also a possibility that this is NOT the end of the wave 3 uptrend, and that after a correction, wave 3,5 is on its way, so this may have a much longer way to go.
My target, using wave 1 length (240%) times 2.618 gives a length of wave 3 of 626.9%
Wave 2 low (5.14) * (1 + (629.9)/100))
5.14 * 7.269 = 37.43 target for wave 3.5 peak.
Given the strength of this uptrend, this is how I would look at it from the bullish POV.
Bearish
Since the wave 3.2 low (date: 4/25/05) retraced 50%% of wave 3.1 (date 3/28/05), then it is more likely than not that wave 3.4 will come close to a 38.2% retrace of that big wave 3.3.
That gives me a target somewhere around 18.40. Doesn't look like we are close to that yet.
If the guideline of alternation comes up, wave 4 should be steeper and/or longer in time than wave 2, and more complex. We may see a something of a small rally, maybe even one that is slightly higher than the wave 3 peak, (wave B of 4) only to return lower.
Now, before I get your hopes up, there is an alternate count that is much less bullish.
How do we know for sure that your wave 1 really is a wave 1? We don't. I could also call it wave A of a correction of the downtrend. We don't have enough data to know where the stock is in the larger cycle.
That would make the end of your wave 3 a wave C, with the sharp run up being a wave 5 extension inside of a wave 3. The correction of a 5th wave extension, if you look at the guidelines, is the low of wave 2, or the 10 dollar level.
Given that both the mad bull count, and the more bearish end of C count, coupled with the fact that the stock couldn't break out from the all time highs, lead me to lean toward the bearish camp for the intermediate term.
Result: Stock made a high at 41.11 on 5/5/06, with resistance being focused around the 37.50-39.00 level.
Was this the fault of Elliott Wave, or was it my error?
2. ATMI: On February 26, HnC posted a bullish outlook, which I disputed.
Possible elliot trade ATMI
When I can't use waves as targets, I resort to Bollinger bands and a 21 period moving average.
Based on the momentum indicators, I'd expect a rally to about 31.80, with a max move around 33.50 (the 1 SD BB). Perhaps for a swing trade this would be ok, but if it came near your targets, I'd be a seller, for standard technical reasons.
If anything, I think at most this may retrace 38.2% of the decline, only to further violate the lows.
Interestingly, the 21 day moving average target coincides with the 21 week 1 SD Bollinger Band.
Volume would lead me to think this correction has farther to go. Prices broke down on high volume during the first wave down. The retracement showed above average, but lower volume than the downleg, confirming the downward trend.
The low last week shows very low volume. It is hard to tell if it is lack of selling pressure, buying pressure, or both. What is really needed is a good volume day with a candle reversal--ie. a bullish white line.
All in all, I think the bulls have more to prove than the bears at this point.
Result: ATMI rallied briefly to the suggested resistance point (31.50), put in a slightly lower low on March 9, rallied up to the second resistance point (33) on April 21, only to trade much lower, where it is now around 25.50.
3. GOOG
Google
On March 25, I wrote:
FWIW, I'm of the opinion that Google completed its bull market, 5 wave advance at the January high. The real question is the structure of the correction.
I see 2 possibilities--a complex correction that takes google in a sideways to downtrend, with a potential counter trend rally that could slightly exceede the January high--a so-called "irregular" correction in Elliott terminology. While possible, that is unlikely in this case.
The more bearish alternative is that the initial leg down to the February lows could be the end of wave 1. The entire action from that initial low could be a wave 2, and this rally could be c of 2.
Wave 2 retracements are known to be fairly steep, the thinking being that people don't know a trend reversal is underway, and decide to buy weakness in the case of mature uptrends, or sell strength, in the case of mature downtrends.
Despite the good news, GOOG didn't make it above the 55 day moving average, and is at a good target to short on the daily at current levels, all other things being equal.
Yet, all other things are not equal. Google will see some buying pressure, that might take it as high as the 425 level, due to the inclusion in the index.
From my POV, that seems as good a bet as any. There was a significant divergence on the daily. But, GOOG would be a good short anywhere between the 400-425 level. I'd also be a seller on a breakdown of the March lows, even though don't normally like to play breakouts immediately.
Perhaps Google's addition to the index is what it finally takes to get this market to move down. My analysis of the charts seems to suggest GOOG wants to go down in the worst way, and the comming downtrend should be very sharp
Result: Google traded up as anticipated the projected resistance level around 425, and then gapped up on earnings to 450. Since that gap, GOOG has given up practically all of the gains it made since being added to the SP-500. A case of the right idea, but wrong timing.
4. AAPL: March 23, 2006
What happened to AAPL today??? It collapsed today. It is so far down it is looking oversold, and is due for a bounce, which may be a fairly sharp countertrend rally that could take this back to the 69-75 level (a 61% retrace of the decline).
I count a 5 waves down, and it appears today's move is the end of a 5 of 5 from both the January high, and the February high.
On the bearish side, this count is very bearish, implying the bull move in AAPL is over for the forseeable future.
Since this decline has a 5 wave structure, that means there is much further on the downside to go.
I'd need tomorrow for confirmation. A close above today's high would strengthen my conviction in this analysis. There is also a good chance that we won't know for sure until next week.
Tomorrow might see an open not too far from today's close, a sell off through the middle of the day, only to close toward the highs. If that happens with tomorrow being a high volume day, I'd be pretty confident the decline is done. That would be a hammer reversal, and would push the confirmation out until next week.
Result: AAPL staged a sharp rally to the 73.80 level, and has since given up the gains from the March/April lows.
5. HAL: 4/4/06
The monthly chart shows a negative momentum divergence, along with a potential Head and Shoulder top.
The near term appears bullish. Volume has been strong at each major price peak, so there doesn't seem to be a lack of interest at higher prices. It is probably safe to hold here, and set some above market sell targets higher than the $80 level. Although anything is possible, I don't expect a sell off until sometime in late summer.
HAL made a peak on April 21 at 83, and has since sold off from there. My error was not recognizing how close the top was.
|
|
 Gold Customer
Joined: 11/13/2004
Posts: 102
|
Good summary. It took you some time to write this.
Thanks,
soc
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
It would seem that the best way to have a trading system set-up is:
I am bullish (or bearish) on this stock because of "X".
If "Y" happens then it is wrong.
The "danger" with any system that involves "opinion" and "interpretation"
is at what point can bias "take-over" the system.
The problem with someone like Prechter is there seems to be no price
level or time-frame that will change his mind. "Wrong" does not seem to be in his vocabulary. Opinion, bias and stubbornness have overtaken the
facts and analysis of EW theory. I can only guess his opinions are
verbal (and in his news letters) and he has not put his "money"
where his mouth is.
As time has gone on in my trading I have put my "faith" in things that are
factual. Things that cannot be argued with. Price strength, relative strength,
moving averages, momentum. This makes life much more simple.
Why are you in the stock? (it is strong)
When will you sell? (here is the stop---it will move up as the stock rises)
What is your target?(there is none I am prepared to ride the trend as long as it lasts)
When will you get out? (when it is over)
As I stated in another post during the 2000-2002 bear market I was focused
on stocks like: AZO, APOL, SLM, LMT, ACS. To tell you the truth when
there are stocks trading like this, I'm not sure what a bear market is?
If I have a problem with all this market prediction. It is even if I call
the exact top and I call it on the exact day. Then what do I do?
There seems to be the burden that in order to be successful I must
do it over and over again and over again.
If I am wrong or if I am premature of if I am late. It would seem
that I would do no better than following technicals.
If I allowed opinion or bias to sneak into the equation it could be very
dangerous. (as Prechter has shown)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
Diceman wrote:
"It would seem that the best way to have a trading system set-up is: I am bullish (or bearish) on this stock because of "X". If "Y" happens then it is wrong."
I would have thought something like this would be obvious, and this is how I organize my posts.
The problem with someone like Prechter is there seems to be no price level or time-frame that will change his mind. "Wrong" does not seem to be in his vocabulary. Opinion, bias and stubbornness have overtaken the
facts and analysis of EW theory
Now, is that the fault of Pretcher alone, or is that something inherent in Elliott Wave Theory?
I suppose my post is more theoretical. How does one separate the value of a theory from the results of a poor, but famous practitioner?
Being more specific--citing Pretcher's poor record is of minimal relevance to the question of how valuable Elliott Wave Theory is to traders.
I think an unbiased look at my posts based on Elliott Wave, as well as a look at the track record of other wave theorists (Hamilton Bolton, A.J. Frost, and some of Richard Russell's writings) would suggest there is value in Elliott's theories.
Legions of analysts devote their day to studying fundamentals, yet academics and technicians alike point out that most fund managers underperform the broad market indices.
Fundamental analysts recommended Enron as a "buy" right up until the "shocking" announcement of the bankrupcy.
A whole slew of other stocks follow the same pattern--many buy or strong buy ratings during a steep downtrend in a stock, only to see analysts cut their ratings from "buy" to "hold" or to "sell" AFTER the fundamental reason for the decline is obvious.
Do the results of these analysts prove that fundamental analysis is useless? I don't think so.
The fundamental truth of the market is that the minority makes the most money. It seems misguided to argue that a theory is flawed because a majority of its practitioners fail to "beat the market."
You say you trade on "facts." Well, the fundamentalists would also say they trade on facts. The problem is in the implications of those facts, and what they mean for the future action of the market.
Are there any guidelines someone can give a new trader to consistently draw profitable conclusions, or is the ability to trade--either through fundamentals, technicals, or some combination of the two, gained solely through experience, reflection, or trial and error?
The more I think about this, the more I realize I can't say anything more on trading than the cliche: "Cut your losses, and let profits run." It seems obvious, and it really IS obvious. But the tricks we play on ourselves make following this maxim something extremely difficult to do in practice.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:"I would have thought something like this would be obvious, and this is how I organize my posts."
Prechter doesn't seem to be aware of it.
Quote:"Being more specific--citing Pretcher's poor record is of minimal relevance to the question of how valuable Elliott Wave Theory is to traders."
The point is not Prechter vs. EW theory. The point is once you are
allowed to decide or interpret you have the possibility of bringing
bias or stubbornness into the equation. Many times two EW traders
have different calls (bullish/bearish) on the same markets or stocks.
They are claiming support and resistance levels. Yet both cant be correct.
It would seem at some point if Prechter is a bear a strong rally should
force him to change his opinion or reevaluate his counts.
If you ask 50 traders which of the Dow are above their 100 day
moving average? There should be no debate.
Which Dow stock is up the most in the last six months.
There should be no debate.
Ask them to generate wave counts and things get a little more fuzzy.
Quote:"You say you trade on "facts." Well, the fundamentalists would also say they trade on facts."
The problem with fundamentalist is their facts have know timeframe.
If you make a statement like: "Baby boomers will live longer that
will be good for healthcare".
The question is when? Next year? Ten years from now?
When I talk about facts. I mean the stock is above moving average
"X" . It has moved up the most in the last "X" amount of days.
Things that remove bias and opinion from the equation.
I don't have to debate counts. I don't have to figure support and resistance
levels. I don't have to discern price targets.
This brings the debate down to one question. Does the stocks previous
strong performance continue? Many studies and market experience
say yes. If not that's what a stop is for.
Quote:"The more I think about this, the more I realize I can't say anything more on trading than the cliche: "Cut your losses, and let profits run." It seems obvious, and it really IS obvious. But the tricks we play on ourselves make following this maxim something extremely difficult to do in practice."
I agree 100 percent.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
When I talk about facts. I mean the stock is above moving average "X" . It has moved up the most in the last "X" amount of days. Things that remove bias and opinion from the equation.
The question isn't what the "facts" are, it is the implications of those facts on the course of market prices that is important.
Market data (ie. the "facts") inherently ambiguous, and can be interpreted in 2 different ways. This holds for fundamentals, technicals, or even economic data.
The same data can have directly opposite effects, depending upon how other market participants have already incorporated it into their trading behavior.
ie. Rising prices on rising volume is bullish.
Yet, there comes a point where the trend is too obvious, prices rise up to absurd levels on very high volume. This is known as a "blow off" top. How to distinguish between the two?
Another example: When the economy is in a strong uptrend, the Fed raises rates. The market continues to go up. Then, the Fed pauses. Market commentators generally argue that this is bullish. If the Fed hikes couldn't stop the market, why won't a pause send it shooting higher?
Yet, anyone who looks at the record will see that the market will sell off on this news, as the Fed pause generally suggests weaker growth in future quarters.
The real art of trading is not necessarily understanding the facts, but understanding how much the market has already incorporated these facts into current prices, using the action of prices (and volumes) themselves as a guide. This isn't mechanical, as the quants would have it, but it isn't completely arbitrary either, as you would suggest.
Whenever the topic of Elliott Wave comes up on this board, those who dislike it (and not having studied it in any great depth) invariably cite Pretcher as proof it doesn't work.
Yet, I can cite my numerous posts, as well as the work of Hamilton Bolton, A.J. Frost, as well as Richard Russell, who have made some amazingly accurate market calls over the years.
What does any of this prove?
Russell is a Dow theorist, but he had used Elliott Wave theory during the 70's to pick amazingly low risk points to enter a trend.
Now, I ask again--is it really fair to judge a method based on the results of a few, non-randomly chosen followers?
Technical analysis, as I understand it, is a more organized form of "reading the tape." Just look at any book by the masters--Richard Wyckoff, Jesse Livermore, or those who wrote in the early 20th century.
They argued against a "mechanical" interpretation of charts without understanding the context that the chart is made. They often pointed to the losses suffered by "chart players" as opposed to "tape readers."
I suppose my point is to get people to think. What is ultimately responsible for market profits--provable theories that can convince a skeptic, or a flexible mindset that intuitively knows what market data is important, and when?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:"Whenever the topic of Elliott Wave comes up on this board, those who dislike it (and not having studied it in any great depth) invariably cite Pretcher as proof it doesn't work."
To me the issues with Prechter is one of credibility. I will usually
bring him up when someone has quoted him. In the sense of: "how
can you listen to this guy?"
I cant believe he is truly representative of EW theory. (Otherwise
everyone who uses it would be broke) However he does represent
what can go wrong because it is a method that involves interpretation.
He is allowed to use the wrong cycles and the wrong counts.
There is no "exact interpretation of what everything is.
My point about facts is: If I make a statement like all stocks
that have moved up between 30 and 35% in the last 100 days
are good buy candidates. It is something that is repeatable.
It is something that can be tested. It is something that
is exactly defined.
It creates only one question. Is it true?
All traders to some degree deal with many issues.
The overall market direction.
Interest rates.
The dollar.
The FED.
Inflation
and so on.
We cant avoid it. Now when we add EW theory to the mix.
We have added (in my opinion) even more degrees of freedom.
Are our counts correct? Do multiple time frames line up?
If our count is wrong a what point will we know it? Why do some
EW guys disagree with other EW guys. If they have different
methods and standards which one is correct?
All these elements also involve some of the worst aspects
of human emotion. Fear, greed, bias, pessimism, optimism.
Which opens the door to go wrong.
(this is what I think Prechters flaw is he refuses to think he is
wrong because he can)
In my trading I have tried to head in the other direction.
Define what is right. Define what is wrong and follow the rules.
I found that my trading improved when I stopped thinking
this cant happen and that cant happen.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
QUOTE (diceman)
My point about facts is: If I make a statement like all stocks
that have moved up between 30 and 35% in the last 100 days
are good buy candidates. It is something that is repeatable.
It is something that can be tested. It is something that
is exactly defined.
It is this mindset--the long run frequency interpretation of probability as applied to the financial markets, that I think is completely mistaken.
It assumes market events are repeatable events where event A implies event B, simply because we have a historical frequency that suggests such a relationship.
Historical events in the market are not the same as repeatable experiments, much like wagering on football or horseracing is not the same as betting on blackjack. The probabilities in sports betting are subjective and refer to degrees of belief in a particular outcome. Those in blackjack, it is fair (although not completely accurate) to say, "objective, long run frequency" probabilities, assuming the game is fair.
It is as if people don't exist, and prices behave much like molecules in solution, or in a gas, without any regard to context.
It is the context in which the market action that takes place, which is important. The tape readers of early 1900's understood this, but it has been lost in the desire to be "objective" and "scientific."
LTCM had very nice "objective" and "scientific" models of the market. They were successful for a time. Yet they blew up. Something about the market changed, rendering their model useless.
How does one guard against this? By thinking about the reasons for the success of the system, circumstances that could cause model failure,
and market action which would suggest the system is likely to experience model failure in current conditions.
The historical data crunching you suggest is very misleading, without the appropriate context and judgement. Permabulls, along with the buy and hope proponets, can point to the long term uptrend in the U.S. stock market as an argument for stocks in every investment portfolio.
Yet, for a good period of that time, no one was really able to actually buy the market, and were forced to select individual stocks, many of which did poorly. The market up through the 1980's really was a market of stocks. It was only after a roaring bull market in the 1980's
when index funds became popular, and in the late 1990's when ETF's became the speculative vehicle of choice.
Is the long term uptrend in U.S. stocks the only factor to consider, especially when that conclusion seems more than discounted in the actual market?
The other bias--an exclusive focus on the U.S. market. The long term bull run in U.S. stocks ignores the debacles that occured in stock markets throughout the world during the upheavals from WW I and WW II, where the U.S. was the only country left standing that didn't have infrastructure decimated, and had a comparatively strong financial system.
My point is that there are no "facts" that can do without interpretation. Data doesn't speak for itself. You say you just go by "facts", but you have your own ideas of what the implications of those facts imply.
If there was only one way to interpret any "fact", the market would either regularly gap to new levels, or it wouldn't trade at all. There wouldn't be trading strategies that focus on mean reversion (ie. value investing) or trend following (growth/momentum investing). I think it is clear that both work, depending on the environment.
Everyone focuses on "systems" or a "right" way to trade, instead of thinking about how to develop good judgement and intuition. That is where the real money is made.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:"The historical data crunching you suggest is very misleading, without the appropriate context and judgment."
No one said there was no context or judgment.
I cant understand for the life of me how I am supposed to not be able
to trust The statements a stock is up or a stock is down.
But I am supposed to take the same chart .Apply counts to it.
Apply support and resistance to it. Correlate it to multiple time-frames.
And trust that more???
We cant make price patterns "work" for EW theory and void for everything else.
Quote:"How does one guard against this? By thinking about the reasons for the success of the system, circumstances that could cause model failure,
and market action which would suggest the system is likely to experience model failure in current conditions."
No one said it wasn't done.
My point wasn't to create a one statement rule that could be followed
through all market conditions.
My point was to show that "clear" statements can break bias.
If Prechter had added as simple a statement as : If the SP-500
breaks its 100 day moving average I will turn positive. I will
revise my counts. He would have been more accruate.
Prechters problem is all his opinions are theoretical. His formulas
grand super cycles and biases are between his ears. There is
nothing factual to change his decision. At some point facts have to
outweigh theory.
Quote:"LTCM had very nice "objective" and "scientific" models of the market. They were successful for a time. Yet they blew up. Something about the market changed, rendering their model useless."
This is "exactly" my point. This was a "biased" model. that was based
on the "subjective decisions" and "opinions" of the people involved.
There was nothing simple , clear, or factual about it.
When you talk about the weighting of variables and the correlation
of variables. this is totally subjective.
Certainly it can be equated to the simple concept. Up good,
Down bad.
The funny thing is they probably could have gotten away with it
if they just used simple money management. (Go to cash when it
goes down 10%)
Quote:"There wouldn't be trading strategies that focus on mean reversion (ie. value investing) or trend following (growth/momentum investing). I think it is clear that both work, depending on the environment."
Of course the market environment should be taken into account.
The question is how?
My point is certain market measures cannot be wrong.
In the sense that a stock cannot go up and not break above
a moving average. It cannot go down and not break below a moving
average. Of course that can be a "false start" but it cannot not
happen.
The problem with Prechter is his market stance is between his ears.
There is no hard, un-debatable market measure to say: "Hey wake up
and smell the coffee".
His stance is basically: "I am bearish".
Why?
"Because I am"
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
Diceman,
You seem to have a fixation with Pretcher.
If you want to rail against Pretcher, take it up with him. His poor record has nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with how I use Elliott Wave theory.
I look at the charts for signs of turning points in trends. The charts of individual stocks all suggest to me that the market is nearing a significant top.
You don't think that's possible to catch the extremes in the market--find. I disagree, and submit my posts from 2005 through now, as evidence that catching the swings is possible, if difficult.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:"You seem to have a fixation with Pretcher."
Prechter is simply the "poster child" of what can go wrong.
When judgment, opinion, and bias. Are allowed to enter
what is called prediction and analysis.
If you have a prediction that is "off" by thousands of points
and decades of time. If you are truly analyzing the market
at some point you should say "hey maybe I was wrong".
As I have stated. He cant be the true representative of
EW theory.
If you think he is. I have some land I would like to sell to you.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
Prechter is simply the "poster child" of what can go wrong. When judgment, opinion, and bias. Are allowed to enter what is called prediction and analysis
And that has exactly what to do with this thread? Do I need to remind you that I'm not Pretcher?
Fundamentals move markets. Yet fundamentalists disagree on the effect of fundamentals, with some bullish, others bearish.
Technical analysis is a bit easier in that we can at least agree on what has happened in the past. The question is the implications for the future.
As I've posted time and time again, market data is ambiguous. It is the judgement of the analyst who brings order to the chart, and decides what factors are relevant, and which are not. Some people are better at this than others.
You keep talking about "facts", but have yet shown me one example of how you use thes "facts" to draw investment conclusions.
The very idea of "following the trend" is itself ambiguous. Which trend should one follow? A monthly chart, a weekly chart, or a daily? What moving average to use--5 bar, 50 bar, or a 500 bar?
If you deal in "facts", please provide me some "facts" as to stocks you would buy today, or have bought in the past few weeks.
I've provided many examples of how I use judgement to look at the charts, and how I my calls have worked out.
Rants againts Pretcher, or saying I'm a "permabear" simply because I think the bullish outlook is unsupported, isn't a "fact" I'm interested in.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:"And that has exactly what to do with this thread?"
The title. When I saw it I thought you were saying is
EW theory bad or is it the person using it.
Since Precthter is the most famous "GURU" of EW theory
and he has been so famously wrong. I thought that is what
you were alluding to.
Quote:"You keep talking about "facts", but have yet shown me one example of how you use these "facts" to draw investment conclusions"
If I am a perma-bear and what I am short goes above a long-term
moving average. It says "hey I could be wrong".
I gave you the example of Prechter and the 100 day moving average.
I don't understand what the confusion is ? You are going to tell me
you don't understand the concept of a stop loss.(a factual measure)
You don't understand the concept of moving averages? (a factual measure)
Boillinger bands?(a factual measure) Momentum?(a factual measure)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
I don't understand what the confusion is ? You are going to tell me
you don't understand the concept of a stop loss.(a factual measure)
You don't understand the concept of moving averages? (a factual measure)
Boillinger bands?(a factual measure) Momentum?(a factual measure)
I don't understand whenever I bring up MY analysis of the market using EWT, you find some reason to bring Pretcher's name into it, and find a flaw with it, as if Pretcher's record is proof that EWT involves no stop placement or risk control.
The entire point of EWT is to get into and out of trends with a close, but reasonable stop or price target.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quote:"The entire point of EWT is to get into and out of trends with a close, but reasonable stop or price target."
Let me ask you something then. Since you get mad if I mention
Prechter. How do you explain Prechter? Don't you see how
your statement is 180 degrees out of phase with his position?
Is his definition of a trend different? Is there any level of
market rise that will make him bullish?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
Diceman,
I'm going to respond to some of your posts because you are making yourself look like a fool.
Don't take these responses personally, but you really need to take the time to understand Prechter and his view on the Elliot Wave.
I don't know any other way to say this, but you are ignorant of Prechter and the Elliot Wave concepts...
I'm not saying he is 100% right (because he is not), but consider these points:
You Wrote:
"Is there any level of market rise that will make him bullish?"
Yes, there is. The market has to make new highs and sustain them. This would change his count in the grand super cycle to be starting the 5th wave instead of finishing a C wave correction up.
You Wrote:
"I can only guess his opinions are verbal (and in his news letters) and he has not put his "money" where his mouth is."
Again, you are showing your ignorance. Prechter has nothing to prove. When he applied Elliot Wave trading in the DOW JONES trading contest, he won quite handily..beating out the best traders in the world banking over 300% in just a few months in the early 80s.
You Wrote:
"As time has gone on in my trading I have put my "faith" in things that are factual. Things that cannot be argued with. Price strength, relative strength,moving averages, momentum. This makes life much more simple."
Again, if you had any knowledge of Elliot Wave you would know there are clear rules for wave counts. Prechter follows those rules just as you would follow a moving average cross or momentum.
What makes your "factual" indicators better than his???
He has clear price targets, as long as a new high has not been made then there is no contradiction in his wave count.
I don't know why you can't see that.
Elliot wave has clear rules. Its just that the retracements can occur at multiple points. If the retracments make new highs or lows then the wave count changes. BUT THE WAVE COUNT HAS NOT CHANGED YET. We are at the maximum retracement point in the markets. If the market makes new highs, then it is not a retracement but a new impulse wave AND THEN THE WAVE COUNT WOULD CHANGE.
By Prechter's own definition if this happens he will be wrong and HE KNOWS THAT AND READILY ADMITS IT.
In summary Prechter is NOT A PERMABEAR! He called the Bull market of the 80s when everyone was extremely bearish.
Anyone objectively following the Elliot Wave Count he has laid out, will tell you the next MACRO CYCLE LEG IS DOWN.
It doesn't mean he is right, but he is following objective wave price targets and rules.
Until his price targets are crossed he may just be right.
I know you don't want to accept that fact, but it MAY BE TRUE.
He may be right…and until the highs are taken out we can’t cross him out just yet.
Take the time to understand what you are arguing about.
I have many years of experience trading elliot waves concepts and I have been a subscriber to Prechter’s service in the past. I can tell you objectively of his strengths and short comings. Believe me he does have short comings, he is stubborn and he is on his last retracement level before he has to admit that he may be wrong. BUT AS OF TODAY HIS COUNT HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.
Seriously, what is your point in ripping into people like rmr1976 because he uses elliot wave??
What's the big deal? He is not Prechter.
Why the need to trash everyone that doesn't agree with you?
Why would you argue so strongly about something you know very little about?
In closing, I feel the need to defend Prechter because your attacks on him are cruel and based solely on ignorance.
Elliot wave can be very useful tool to add to a traders arsenal.
Different strokes for different folks.
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
Truemaster,
Thanks for the post. I remember when I started learning about Elliott a few years ago, I thought it was tea leaf reading.
Right now, the biggest problem I have is "believing what I see." Pretcher alludes to this problem in EWP on page 86.
You wrote:
I have many years of experience trading elliot waves concepts and I have been a subscriber to Prechter’s service in the past. I can tell you objectively of his strengths and short comings. Believe me he does have short comings, he is stubborn and he is on his last retracement level before he has to admit that he may be wrong. BUT AS OF TODAY HIS COUNT HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.
The one problem is that he is focusing WAY too much on the very long term outlook he gets from the composite indices derived from splicing data that goes back to the 1700's.
That is an arbitrary exercise, and you can prove all sorts of things by doing that.
He should just stick to counting the Dow Jones and the SP, which has a reliable history. I don't know how reliable the stock data from the 1800's is, but I'm sure there are problems with it.
Second, he should admit that there is a certain limit to the ability to put fractals from different time frames into a meaningful pattern.
When you get away from the daily, weekly, and monthly time frames, and start worrying about waves that take decades and centuries, the reliability of your conclusions have such a huge margin for error, in both price and time, as to render them irrelevant.
So, while you are right that the Pretcher count hasn't been violated, there has been a lot of money made on the bull side during this counter trend rally from the 2002 lows.
Third, I think he dismisses fundamentals too easily, although his books (ie. Crest of the Tidal Wave)cause him to contradict himself, as he discusses fundamental economic factors such as dividends, valuations, etc.
He really should take a page out of Hamilton Bolton's book, and study the waves in the context of credit expansion and contraction. This would have kept him on the right side of the market from 1987 onwards.
Finally, he should be up front when the waves are unclear. A case in point--Newmont mining (NEM).
HnC, Take a look at Newmont again...
I've posted about this stock since February. The waves are picture perfect. Yet, at this point, I don't know if we should expect wave 3.5.5 up, or if we have a case of a "failed fifth" and should expect a sharp drop down.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
rmr1976,
Hey you are welcome.
Prechter has contributed large volumes to the trading community and he is truly a great human being. He is a magnificent trader and analyst. But even the best analysts can be wrong from time to time. I really feel that it is an injustice to see him attacked for no apparent reason.
You raise some good points about the splicing of the time frames.
I think the reason he is comfortable doing this is his central thesis that the human social mood and trends drive the elliot waves. Therefore, (valid or not) he traces social trends in parallel with the markets.
One of the main reasons Prechter has been wrong calling the top throughout the 90s was due to the fact that we had a 5th wave extension.
5th wave extensions are very rare, but they can happen.
Usually the "monster" waves are 3rd waves and C waves. 5th waves are usually short in duration. Look and the chart I labeled in the other thread. http:www.worden.com/training/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12715 The 3rd waves and the C waves extend the greatest. The 5th waves ARE MUCH SHORTER. This is why Prechter called the top so early in the 90s (because we were in a 5th wave). But the 5th wave extended into 2000.
According to Prechter when the 5th wave extends, the consequences are much more severe on the ABC correction. If you recall the A wave is relatively the smallest part of the correction. The A wave will typically eat up the previous 5th wave advance. In this case, the A wave would eat up all gains dating back to the early 80s. But that's not even the most destructive part. The terrible C wave that follows is the one that would take the dow back to 400 and the nasdaq back to under 100.
This is why Prechter is even more concerned than ever because the 5th wave extension sets up the most severe corrections.
I thought you might find it interesting to track Ian Gordon and his analysis of the Kondratieff cycle. Gordon is a gold bug and basisly parallels Precters deflationary/depression outlook but for entirely different reasons. You could consider Gordon the "fundamentals" for the coming depression that he and Prechter allude to.
Check out this link for more info.
http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/Gordon.htm
By the way, in relation to the original topic of this thread.
The analyst is always the issue! We are our own worst enemies. It is very hard to take emotion and bias out of the picture.
1. For me the biggest issue with Elliot Wave is where to begin the count.
2. Then the issue is gauging the retracements within a wave structure.
3. Finally, if the retracements exceed the rules for wave counts, then the issue becomes recounting the waves all together.
---------
I will look at the wave count on Newmont Mining and let you know what I think...
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Truemaster
Here are some of your and rmr1976 quotes about Prechter:
truemaster:
Quote:"Yes he has been wrong through the 90s. The other day I was cleaning out my closet and I found an old tape of Prechter begin interviewed by Tony Robbins. The interview is dated 1993. The tape is full of warnings about the coming bear market...and then we proceeded on a bull run to the top until 2000."
rmr1976
Quote:"I don't know if Pretcher has the best counts. He lets his conclusions get the better of him. He has been fighting the bull market tooth and nail, when it was clear to anyone watching the tape in October 2002 or March 2003, that the market was ready to go up.
I do wish he would study the work of Hamilton Bolton a bit more closely. It would make his analysis a bit less biased, and open to alternative interpretations. Had he done so, he would have realized the massive liquidity injected into the system by both the Fed and the Japanese, probably a coordinated effort.
truemaster
Quote:Keep in mind that while Prechter may have been wrong about the 90s bull market, the top he is calling for is a grand super cycle that dates back +150 years."
truemaster
Quote:Well I think that Prechter brings much of the criticism on himself.
It was foolish of him to be bearish in 2003. He even brags himself about all wars starting at market bottoms so I don't know why he didn't follow his own cues.
Here is an quote of mine regarding Prechter and EW theory.
diceman
Quote:"I actually think individuals using Elliott can perform well. Its just that Precter being so wrong is probably the wrong face for it. I believe more in the theory then Precter. He has committed one of the cardinal sins of investment. His opinion has blinded his TA.
Is that some of the "cruel ignorance you are talking about. Is that
ripping rmr1976s EW theory.
I have said nothing any worse then you. I have always stated that
individuals are not him.
I could only find one post were I responded to rmr on "HIS" analysis.
(my search locks up)
rmr1976
Quote:" Some charts I see:
Murphy Oil (MUR)--Bearish momentum crossover with TSV 5 and 21 = Negative divergence.
Pioneer Natural Resources (PDX)--My indicators already gave a momentum reversal signal, and it looks as if TSV is about to give one too.
Cheniere Energy (LNG) The 5 period TSV is negatively diverging from the price.
Newfield Exploration (NFX): Negative TSV crossover.
Nabors Industries (NBS): My indicators give a momentum reversal crossover, TSV on the monthly looks OK, although the Worden's note a negative divergence on the lower time frames.
BJ Service (BJS); My indicators show a momentum reversal, but TSV on this chart looks OK, although it wouldn't take much to have a negative crossover.
Devon Oil and Gas (DVN): TSV about to have negative crossover.
Conoco Phillios (COP): Negative TSV Crossover
Keep in mind, these were just the first few charts I looked through (sorted by Worden note date).
diceman
Quote:rmr1976 As usual excellent analysis.
More ripping?
You should really know what you are talking about
before you accuse.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
truemaster
If you want to use EW theory then do so.
Don't fall into the trap of making me the enemy because
of Prechters poor results.
Realize that Precter is a big boy and will take his medicine.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
Diceman,
---------------
You Wrote:
"I have said nothing any worse then you. "
---------------
Young fool, you know nothing of the man or elliot wave for that matter. I hold Prechter in high esteem. The difference between my critique and yours is that I have years of personal experience with him, his service and elliot wave. I have taken the time through thoughtful observation and analysis to understand elliot wave and Prechters views on the market. At times I have had to part ways with his service and walk my own path, but that doesn't mean he is completely wrong or a "permabear".
You are just blindly spouting off at the mouth just to hear yourself talk, blindly attacking concepts you cannot fathom.
---------------
You Wrote:
"Don't fall into the trap of making me the enemy because
of Prechters poor results."
---------------
Enemy?
Don't give yourself that much credit.
You are just an ignorant fool who offers nothing to this conversation but attacks.
---------------
You Wrote:
"My calculations show we will only touch the 1125 area.
Because it is strong support will will bounce off it.
My calculations show it will be touched (but not broken) on
SEPT 28 2006.
It will happen between 3:37 and 3:38 in the afternoon.
From that point the market will rally and end up at
1128.514627 for the day.
(sorry for the inaccurate close my calculator only rounds to
6 digits.)
For those that can tolerate the inaccuracy. 1128.51 is an
acceptable target for the close."
---------------
Really YOU HAVE OFFERED NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE THREADS.
YOUR POSTS ARE HOLLOW, EMPTY AND CHILDISH.
Stick to your moving averages.
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/6/2004
Posts: 4
|
QUOTE (rmr1976) Successful traders are generally contrarians in the sense they do what the masses find difficult, and thereby profit from it. It is hard enough being a technical analyst without getting flack for believing in "voodoo" or "tea leaf reading" from the fundamentalists. It's even harder being an Elliott Wave analyst when the prominent spokesperson for Elliott Wave has been a permabear in a historic bull market. Such errors are believed to be the fault of the theory used. But is that really so? I thought a review of my posts since January would be informative. 1. Kendle International (KNDL). HaveNoCents asked me for a wave outlook on this stock way back on February 08, 2006: RMR elliot wave help please.I provided both a bullish and bearish Elliott Wave outlook, and sided with the bears. Bullish outlook: Wave 3 is usually related to wave 1 by the ratio of 1.618, or 2.618. While there is nothing wrong with wave 3 ending here, there is also a possibility that this is NOT the end of the wave 3 uptrend, and that after a correction, wave 3,5 is on its way, so this may have a much longer way to go.
My target, using wave 1 length (240%) times 2.618 gives a length of wave 3 of 626.9%
Wave 2 low (5.14) * (1 + (629.9)/100))
5.14 * 7.269 = 37.43 target for wave 3.5 peak.
Given the strength of this uptrend, this is how I would look at it from the bullish POV. Bearish Since the wave 3.2 low (date: 4/25/05) retraced 50%% of wave 3.1 (date 3/28/05), then it is more likely than not that wave 3.4 will come close to a 38.2% retrace of that big wave 3.3.
That gives me a target somewhere around 18.40. Doesn't look like we are close to that yet.
If the guideline of alternation comes up, wave 4 should be steeper and/or longer in time than wave 2, and more complex. We may see a something of a small rally, maybe even one that is slightly higher than the wave 3 peak, (wave B of 4) only to return lower.
Now, before I get your hopes up, there is an alternate count that is much less bullish.
How do we know for sure that your wave 1 really is a wave 1? We don't. I could also call it wave A of a correction of the downtrend. We don't have enough data to know where the stock is in the larger cycle.
That would make the end of your wave 3 a wave C, with the sharp run up being a wave 5 extension inside of a wave 3. The correction of a 5th wave extension, if you look at the guidelines, is the low of wave 2, or the 10 dollar level.
Given that both the mad bull count, and the more bearish end of C count, coupled with the fact that the stock couldn't break out from the all time highs, lead me to lean toward the bearish camp for the intermediate term.Result: Stock made a high at 41.11 on 5/5/06, with resistance being focused around the 37.50-39.00 level. Was this the fault of Elliott Wave, or was it my error? 2. ATMI: On February 26, HnC posted a bullish outlook, which I disputed. Possible elliot trade ATMIWhen I can't use waves as targets, I resort to Bollinger bands and a 21 period moving average.
Based on the momentum indicators, I'd expect a rally to about 31.80, with a max move around 33.50 (the 1 SD BB). Perhaps for a swing trade this would be ok, but if it came near your targets, I'd be a seller, for standard technical reasons.
If anything, I think at most this may retrace 38.2% of the decline, only to further violate the lows.
Interestingly, the 21 day moving average target coincides with the 21 week 1 SD Bollinger Band.
Volume would lead me to think this correction has farther to go. Prices broke down on high volume during the first wave down. The retracement showed above average, but lower volume than the downleg, confirming the downward trend.
The low last week shows very low volume. It is hard to tell if it is lack of selling pressure, buying pressure, or both. What is really needed is a good volume day with a candle reversal--ie. a bullish white line.
All in all, I think the bulls have more to prove than the bears at this point.Result: ATMI rallied briefly to the suggested resistance point (31.50), put in a slightly lower low on March 9, rallied up to the second resistance point (33) on April 21, only to trade much lower, where it is now around 25.50. 3. GOOG GoogleOn March 25, I wrote: FWIW, I'm of the opinion that Google completed its bull market, 5 wave advance at the January high. The real question is the structure of the correction.
I see 2 possibilities--a complex correction that takes google in a sideways to downtrend, with a potential counter trend rally that could slightly exceede the January high--a so-called "irregular" correction in Elliott terminology. While possible, that is unlikely in this case.
The more bearish alternative is that the initial leg down to the February lows could be the end of wave 1. The entire action from that initial low could be a wave 2, and this rally could be c of 2.
Wave 2 retracements are known to be fairly steep, the thinking being that people don't know a trend reversal is underway, and decide to buy weakness in the case of mature uptrends, or sell strength, in the case of mature downtrends.
Despite the good news, GOOG didn't make it above the 55 day moving average, and is at a good target to short on the daily at current levels, all other things being equal.
Yet, all other things are not equal. Google will see some buying pressure, that might take it as high as the 425 level, due to the inclusion in the index.
From my POV, that seems as good a bet as any. There was a significant divergence on the daily. But, GOOG would be a good short anywhere between the 400-425 level. I'd also be a seller on a breakdown of the March lows, even though don't normally like to play breakouts immediately.
Perhaps Google's addition to the index is what it finally takes to get this market to move down. My analysis of the charts seems to suggest GOOG wants to go down in the worst way, and the comming downtrend should be very sharpResult: Google traded up as anticipated the projected resistance level around 425, and then gapped up on earnings to 450. Since that gap, GOOG has given up practically all of the gains it made since being added to the SP-500. A case of the right idea, but wrong timing. 4. AAPL: March 23, 2006 What happened to AAPL today??? It collapsed today. It is so far down it is looking oversold, and is due for a bounce, which may be a fairly sharp countertrend rally that could take this back to the 69-75 level (a 61% retrace of the decline).
I count a 5 waves down, and it appears today's move is the end of a 5 of 5 from both the January high, and the February high.
On the bearish side, this count is very bearish, implying the bull move in AAPL is over for the forseeable future.
Since this decline has a 5 wave structure, that means there is much further on the downside to go.
I'd need tomorrow for confirmation. A close above today's high would strengthen my conviction in this analysis. There is also a good chance that we won't know for sure until next week.
Tomorrow might see an open not too far from today's close, a sell off through the middle of the day, only to close toward the highs. If that happens with tomorrow being a high volume day, I'd be pretty confident the decline is done. That would be a hammer reversal, and would push the confirmation out until next week.
Result: AAPL staged a sharp rally to the 73.80 level, and has since given up the gains from the March/April lows. 5. HAL: 4/4/06 The monthly chart shows a negative momentum divergence, along with a potential Head and Shoulder top.
The near term appears bullish. Volume has been strong at each major price peak, so there doesn't seem to be a lack of interest at higher prices. It is probably safe to hold here, and set some above market sell targets higher than the $80 level. Although anything is possible, I don't expect a sell off until sometime in late summer.HAL made a peak on April 21 at 83, and has since sold off from there. My error was not recognizing how close the top was.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/6/2004
Posts: 4
|
Contrarian true. Because all of the so called experts are usually wrong at least 50 per cent of the time. And I will include these Worden guys. Their charts are great but. If you check out their predictions they are wrong probably more than half of the time. If they weren't let's face it. They would just get rich trading like some people do. But those people will never reveal their secrets. They are not stupid. If you can get rich trading that is what you do. You don't teach it you do it. Wake up people.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
rmr1976,
Okay now that the diceman side show is over lets focus on Elliot Waves!
Well at first glance I will tell you that I see the 5th wave over around Feb 1st.
We finished an A wave down on March 10th.
We finished a B wave up on May 11th.
The current C wave down also started May 11th (when the B wave finished).
Subwave 1 down of this C wave finished down on May 24th.
Subwave 2 up of this C wave looks to be about finished about now.
If this wave count is correct look for heavy selling pressure to come in very soon (within a couple weeks). We are about to start wave 3 down of this larger C wave. This has gap down potential.
I will post a chart a bit later.
But I would cover any longs on this stock, it looks dangerous at this point (as does the whole market).
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Truemaster
rmrs post started:
Quote:"Successful traders are generally contrarians "
Can you tell me what a contrarian is?
Isn't the whole make-up of the stock market different views and opinions?
If you are bullish and someone is bearish do you want them eliminated?
Do you want them silenced?
Are people who use EW theory the only ones who should be allowed to speak? Or those who don't?
I thought the whole idea of a discussion forum like this was to exchange
ideas. Sometimes in agreement sometimes in disagreement.
If I do a post that I am bullish on AAPL. Should no one be allowed to
disagree with me?
I thought we were supposed to see and learn from other ideas. Not
silence those who disagree with us.
If something is working for you then you should use it. You should not fear
other opinions. You should not silence those who disagree with you.
Your account will determine if you are correct or not.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
Diceman,
You have no informed opinion. You are ignorant in Elliot Wave.
Why don't you research Elliot Wave first and them maybe you will add something to the conversation.
Until then you are just a side show..a distraction... like the neighbor's dog that barks all night whose only purpose serves to rid people of sleep.
In this case you distract from meaniful dialog on this topic.
Go away.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
rmr1976,
Here is how I count it:
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
So, our outlooks aren't all that different, although the counts vary somewhat. I see potential for a serious decline in NEM, as your count indicates.
I think this is a good example that the so-called "count" isn't all that important. What is important is to ID the possible wave structures that offer a plausible description of the past price action, and then identify points where one scenario is proven incorrect.
The hard part is to ID the structures that go against the most obvious count, not to mention the fact that there are some points where Elliott Wave doesn't offer an obvious forecast.
FWIW, I don't see the recent advance as wave B, especially if you think it is a zig-zag down. In a zig-zag, wave B shouldn't retrace more than 61.8% of the prior wave, if it is to look right. Wave B should be fairly small, probably no more than 50%, yet this wave has advanced more than 61.8% of the decline from the Feb. high.
I prefer to count that move as a full 5 waves up, starting from the higher low you labeled wave B (late March). That is why it leaves me in a dilemma.
We should see a strong uptrend in NEM immediately if the bullish outlook is correct. If we don't, then I think the coming down move is part of a larger wave 2, that would be more clearly seen on the weekly.
Since wave 2 corrections are sharp, and failed 5th waves are signs of weakness, a failed 5th wave (ie. a 5 wave advance where wave 5 does not make it out above wave 3) is something to be considered at this point.
The weekly charts, from a momentum POV, look weak, and any rallies here look like shorting opportunities.
It seems the only way to eliminate the bearish possibilty is a breakout over 58, and the bullish is a breakdown below 48. NEM is currently right in the middle of both levels!
What are the bullish posibilities for your Elliott outlook?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
I'm not too crazy about labeling/limiting maximum retracement points.
B Waves can even match (but not exceed) previous 5th waves, this forms the classic double top.
Truncations while possible are rare.
I will post an alternate count.
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
Here is a bit more detail of the previous wave.
I extended the current C wave out a couple of days.
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
rmr1976,
Here is a very possible ALTERNATIVE BULLISH COUNT.
In this count we would be within a complex 4th wave triangle, followed by a thrust into the 5th wave.
<:o)
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 73
|
rmr1976,
NEM gapped up completing a 3rd wave.
It is forming a complex triangle 4th wave (visible on 5min -15min charts)
I expect a 5th wave thrust up, maybe a small gap tomorrow. But according to this bearish count the rally is close to being finished.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 12/19/2004
Posts: 457
|
Very interesting! I wouldn't have thought of that. Very possible. Will have to see if it pans out.
Thanks.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Truemaster
Quote:"Why don't you research Elliot Wave first and them maybe you will add something to the conversation."
I read Prechter, Frost in the 80s. I liked Prechter a lot more back
then. When he spoke it was considered a market event. You
have to remember info and charting were a lot harder to come
by back then.
Due to the facts that I didn't use EW and his bearish stance. I
lost track of him in the 90s. The last article I've read by him
was in the MARCH-04 TASC magazine.
I will keep an eye on your posts. Maybe if we had this type
of forum back then I would have been persuaded.
|
|
|
Guest-1 |