I just started my free trial. I'm very interested in the software and analysis. I did notice Peter was one of the very, very few people who called the recovery off the March lows.

Now I’m scared to long lol

Can the software be used with individual tickers or is it just for overall markets?

I'm confused by what you said starting at 2:20 (paraphrasing): "That's not a probability that we get down to those (projection) numbers, it's a probability that we'll generate a projection down to those numbers." Yet the Projection Statistics chart legend lists the Confirmed Upside/Downside Projections either Reached or Invalidated. You have consistently been pointing to the Confirmed Projections that have actually been reached as an indication of the SMC algorithm effectiveness. Sometimes you supplement the projection by adjusting the ATR %. What am I missing here?

bryansmith1751 said:

Can the software be used with individual tickers or is it just for overall markets?

Hi Brian Can be used with any ticker. However the Eliades‘ cycle offsets were tested and developed in the past with the indexes. You can use the statistics to check how well they perform on other markets and also try own ones using the indicator settings.

Heinz75 said:

I'm confused by what you said starting at 2:20 (paraphrasing): "That's not a probability that we get down to those (projection) numbers, it's a probability that we'll generate a projection down to those numbers." Yet the Projection Statistics chart legend lists the Confirmed Upside/Downside Projections either Reached or Invalidated. You have consistently been pointing to the Confirmed Projections that have actually been reached as an indication of the SMC algorithm effectiveness. Sometimes you supplement the projection by adjusting the ATR %. What am I missing here?

I'm not an expert just a subscriber. From my listen Peter was saying there is downside prediction to 3180 band, this had an over 90% probability - this is a confirmed projection. However if it gets down there another offset will be generated for the 2900 (and below area). This projection has not been generated yet and won't be of these figures unless the 3180 is reached in a certain time period. So this is not a confirmed projection as yet. It might be helpful to know that the generation of new projections appears to vary according to when in time an existing projection is met. The ATR is just used to modify the values of the projection to give the highest probability band based on historical data.

I can’t believe that upside was actually confirmed for the S&P. This thing is magic

m1.c70 said:

Heinz75 said:

I'm confused by what you said starting at 2:20 (paraphrasing): "That's not a probability that we get down to those (projection) numbers, it's a probability that we'll generate a projection down to those numbers." Yet the Projection Statistics chart legend lists the Confirmed Upside/Downside Projections either Reached or Invalidated. You have consistently been pointing to the Confirmed Projections that have actually been reached as an indication of the SMC algorithm effectiveness. Sometimes you supplement the projection by adjusting the ATR %. What am I missing here?

I'm not an expert just a subscriber. From my listen Peter was saying there is downside prediction to 3180 band, this had an over 90% probability - this is a confirmed projection. However if it gets down there another offset will be generated for the 2900 (and below area). This projection has not been generated yet and won't be of these figures unless the 3180 is reached in a certain time period. So this is not a confirmed projection as yet. It might be helpful to know that the generation of new projections appears to vary according to when in time an existing projection is met. The ATR is just used to modify the values of the projection to give the highest probability band based on historical data.

Good observation, thanks. I went back to last Thursday's video and watched it again. It's a subtle point. Does this mean that we can also expect a 92% probability of reaching that second projection if we adjust the projection box with ATR? Can we then multiply the probabilities (0.92 x 0.92 = 0.85) and estimate an 85% probability today of hitting that second projection?

Heinz75 said:

m1.c70 said:

Heinz75 said:

I'm confused by what you said starting at 2:20 (paraphrasing): "That's not a probability that we get down to those (projection) numbers, it's a probability that we'll generate a projection down to those numbers." Yet the Projection Statistics chart legend lists the Confirmed Upside/Downside Projections either Reached or Invalidated. You have consistently been pointing to the Confirmed Projections that have actually been reached as an indication of the SMC algorithm effectiveness. Sometimes you supplement the projection by adjusting the ATR %. What am I missing here?

I'm not an expert just a subscriber. From my listen Peter was saying there is downside prediction to 3180 band, this had an over 90% probability - this is a confirmed projection. However if it gets down there another offset will be generated for the 2900 (and below area). This projection has not been generated yet and won't be of these figures unless the 3180 is reached in a certain time period. So this is not a confirmed projection as yet. It might be helpful to know that the generation of new projections appears to vary according to when in time an existing projection is met. The ATR is just used to modify the values of the projection to give the highest probability band based on historical data.

Good observation, thanks. I went back to last Thursday's video and watched it again. It's a subtle point. Does this mean that we can also expect a 92% probability of reaching that second projection if we adjust the projection box with ATR? Can we then multiply the probabilities (0.92 x 0.92 = 0.85) and estimate an 85% probability today of hitting that second projection?

I am not an expert in the laws of probability, Heinz, but if you can get to 92% probability (and I would think you would need to examine at least 4-5 years of data for a reliable "probability" read) for the 2nd projection, multiplying the two probabilities seems reasonable, but we need someone more expert with probability theory to confim that.