Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Xyber9/Gravitas, Part III

I don't usually post Xyber9/Gravitas change-in-trend dates until after they pass. But this one will conclude my three-part series on the methodology.

Today, March 18 reverses last week's Sell to a Buy.

This is the fourth signal in March:

Sell March 1
Buy March 6
Sell March 13-14
Buy March 18


I get a lot of emails about this trading system, all with the same theme, "Does it work?"

You decide.

A

13 comments:

Bruce said...

Thank you for this follow up to the story. We all like to have different tools in our arsenal and of course its up to the individual to decide what helps them in their style and timeframes.

Robert Taylor must have paid quite a bit for his constant 2 week run of commercials on CNBC. The good part was the copy of his Paradigm book that I had listed on half.com for over a month for sale sold the second day of the commercials.

Robert has invested quite a bit in developing his system and I think he gets a bad wrap on the internet boards because most folks walk away thinking his forecasts are based solely on gravitational forces. Although this is part of the equation it is far from being the whole story. In a previous life I was in the industry that made the mathematical analysis tools that Robert built his system using.

In as simple terms as I can describe it, he first develops a mathematical model of the market at a given point. The he applies a number of inputs to that model and see what the output is. The gravity part comes in as the highest weighted component used as an input. He doesnt provide the details of what the other inputs are and how often he refines the market model but from a high level this is how I understand it.

Happy Trading!

Anonymous said...

Bruce,

I find it fascinating that Taylor incorporated more than gravity into his system. The call to BUY on a fed date is interesting, but if it is a weekly signal the following days action would have you pretty darn close to underwater.

John

Anonymous said...

any more news on NTRZ...it is below $1 again. is it a good time to buy again?

Allan said...

any more news on NTRZ...it is below $1 again. is it a good time to buy again?

Yes.

Allan said...

Robert has invested quite a bit in developing his system and I think he gets a bad wrap on the internet boards because most folks walk away thinking his forecasts are based solely on gravitational forces.

Good point. I've seen many savvy traders lose interest in Taylor's work as soon as they pigeon hole it as based on gravity and/or tidal forces. These same people would embrace the same system if you just described it as based on cycles and left it at that.

Anonymous said...

OT: An old pick, PTSC, is getting recognized and we're seeing buying. The risk hasn't diminished, but accumulation and 15% or so increase in PPS is good news. Especially for me holding _alot_ of these shares. I could use some company at the shareholders meeting. :) I'm not touting, just making light of being a bag holder for so long. Hopefully they will figure out a recurring revenue stream model and the stock takes off.

Do your own DD of course.

The best of luck, Curt

Anonymous said...

Hi Allan,

Do you follow Armstrong's cycles at all? http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html

He seemed to call a crash on 3/22/08.

Eric

Allan said...

Do you follow Armstrong's cycles at all?

Hi, Eric. I have always been attracted to the more esoteric disciplines that lend themselves to what is collectively called cycle theory. I think that is why I was and am so open to Gravitas and the work of Robert Taylor. But I have no more then a cursory familiarity with Martin Armstrong's work.

Crashes are generally an infrequent occurrence and "calling" one, as did Martin Zweig on national TV on October 16, 1987 seem to be more coincidental then the result of objective financial theory.

But I do believe that cycles exist and can be measured in numerous ways, some as I say, more esoteric then others. I have recently been using the Taylor's cycles in conjunction with other natural cycles resulting in encouraging results. As always, I am putting my own money at risk before disclosing the results and methodology, because that is in the end the only measure of a successful trading cycle: Is it predictable enough to consistently make money?

When I am convinced, which may be sooner then I am letting on here, I will upgrade the discussion from the Comments, to its own Blog.

A

Anonymous said...

Hi Allan,

I find cycles fascinating, particularly when they are discovered by minds trained and raised in a western, Socratic, linear-based fashion. Many Eastern traditions (though less so now) start with the assumption that all things occur in cycles, life/death, night/day, etc, and would find a truly linear, non-cyclical pattern to be the exception rather than the rule.

Look forward to your postings.

Eric

Allan said...

Eric,

I find cycles fascinating, particularly when they are discovered by minds trained and raised in a western, Socratic, linear-based fashion.


You mean like this:

http://schulzonmarketcycles.com/home

A

Anonymous said...

A guessing game. A Stansberry & Assoc letter came in mentioning "Dark Equities". I've heard of dark pools trading facilities, but not investment angles. The usual claim of 480% gains starting tomorrow, if I ...

Curt

Anonymous said...

Allan,
Thanks for the Xyber9 posts, I am a day trader and now taking a look at Xyber9. In the excel spreadsheet that you posted, I noticed that you traded the QLD. I thought the Xyber9 forcasts were based on the SP-500. Wouldn't the SSO/SDS ETF's be more appropriate??
Thanks again.

DaveN said...

Another combo might be SPY and SH. Is there a particular reason Taylor shorts the e-minis, aside from the potentially lower (round-trip) trading costs?

Interesting site Allan. Glad I found it.

Dave