Interesting self-reflection by Peter on his overly negative viewpoint, over the last year. Note at 0m 0sec of this video:

1. NASDAQ Composite historically did show a false downside continuation projection in early 2020 (i.e. COVID crash) that ultimately was never met and was eventually invalidated. If you use the Web App to go back to that early 2020 timeframe, you'll see that the comparable @ES and @YM projections called the bottom of the COVID crash reasonably well. No false downside projection was given by either @ES nor @YM. Only the NASDAQ related projections (@NQ, QQQ, and now NASDAQ Composite) demonstrate the same shared systematic weakness in that they ALL show this false downside continuation projection for large downmoves, like the COVID crash. That was one clue that the downside projection given in late 2022 -- and that Peter stuck with throughout 2023 -- was suspect.
2. Peter has recently shown how to use RSI as a divergence indicator to "flag" a potential top happening now. Note that there was also a RSI divergence in late 2022 -- but this time "flagging" a potential bottom -- which eventually was fully realized. So, another clue that the bear-case needed additional supporting evidence, and was suspect without it.

Finally, many subscribers here have noted that Peter seemed to ignore the upside cycle projections that were given throughout 2023.

My own observation of Peter's cycle projection technique is that typically, "things start small". We'll start to see some initial projections at the 3.5 / 4 or 7 / 8 daily offsets, which then lead to further cycle projections in the same direction at larger offsets. Projections that appear at the very large offsets, like the 100 / 110 offset projection seen in this video at 0m 0sec, must necessarily be supported by either a cascade of cycle projections in the same direction at lower offsets, or a series of loop projections at lower offsets.

My recollection of 2023 was that the actual cascade of cycle projections that were seen during 2023 were nearly all to the upside, not downside. Thus contributing to the weight of evidence against the bear-case, and further casting suspicion about the 100 / 110 offset projection. Not to mention, raising the ire of many subscribers here, who believe in the cycle projection technique, but are not used to Peter ignoring them.

Finally, at 9m 0sec of the video, Peter shows the now infamous ratio analysis that we've all seen over the last few months.

Speaking for myself only, here. When I "lock into an idea" that no matter what happens, I insist that the idea remains valid despite growing and compelling evidence against it, I know I've lost my intellectual honesty and situational awareness. Invariably, when I look back several weeks later after FINALLY abandoning the flawed idea, I realize that my ego was somehow at play. I have admitted to misinterpreting my own systems, and I can relate to Peter when he does the same. Only he, in the quiet of some evening in the future, can come to terms with what happened.

I'm a long-term subscriber to Stockmarket Cycles, and so long as Peter focusses on that as the primary technique that he relies upon, I'm good. But, the minute I see a change to the name of this website to Stockmarket Ratios, I'm out ... :P

Last updated 4 months ago

CS37 said:

Interesting self-reflection by Peter on his overly negative viewpoint, over the last year. Note at 0m 0sec of this video:

1. NASDAQ Composite historically did show a false downside continuation projection in early 2020 (i.e. COVID crash) that ultimately was never met and was eventually invalidated. If you use the Web App to go back to that early 2020 timeframe, you'll see that the comparable @ES and @YM projections called the bottom of the COVID crash reasonably well. No false downside projection was given by either @ES nor @YM. Only the NASDAQ related projections (@NQ, QQQ, and now NASDAQ Composite) demonstrate the same shared systematic weakness in that they ALL show this false downside continuation projection for large downmoves, like the COVID crash. That was one clue that the downside projection given in late 2022 -- and that Peter stuck with throughout 2023 -- was suspect.
2. Peter has recently shown how to use RSI as a divergence indicator to "flag" a potential top happening now. Note that there was also a RSI divergence in late 2022 -- but this time "flagging" a potential bottom -- which eventually was fully realized. So, another clue that the bear-case needed additional supporting evidence, and was suspect without it.

Finally, many subscribers here have noted that Peter seemed to ignore the upside cycle projections that were given throughout 2023.

My own observation of Peter's cycle projection technique is that typically, "things start small". We'll start to see some initial projections at the 3.5 / 4 or 7 / 8 daily offsets, which then lead to further cycle projections in the same direction at larger offsets. Projections that appear at the very large offsets, like the 100 / 110 offset projection seen in this video at 0m 0sec, must necessarily be supported by either a cascade of cycle projections in the same direction at lower offsets, or a series of loop projections at lower offsets.

My recollection of 2023 was that the actual cascade of cycle projections that were seen during 2023 were nearly all to the upside, not downside. Thus contributing to the weight of evidence against the bear-case, and further casting suspicion about the 100 / 110 offset projection. Not to mention, raising the ire of many subscribers here, who believe in the cycle projection technique, but are not used to Peter ignoring them.

Finally, at 9m 0sec of the video, Peter shows the now infamous ratio analysis that we've all seen over the last few months.

Speaking for myself only, here. When I "lock into an idea" that no matter what happens, I insist that the idea remains valid despite growing and compelling evidence against it, I know I've lost my intellectual honesty and situational awareness. Invariably, when I look back several weeks later after FINALLY abandoning the flawed idea, I realize that my ego was somehow at play. I have admitted to misinterpreting my own systems, and I can relate to Peter when he does the same. Only he, in the quiet of some evening in the future, can come to terms with what happened.

I'm a long-term subscriber to Stockmarket Cycles, and so long as Peter focusses on that as the primary technique that he relies upon, I'm good. But, the minute I see a change to the name of this website to Stockmarket Ratios, I'm out ... :P

The one thing I learned from all this and I hope Peter starts acting like these long term projections still need to be paid attention when the get invalidated and the price action is following the continuum and not getting very far from it. They still need to be paid attention to as to what can happen. It might not what be what you totally expect but still say these could still happen.

Just today we are hitting the 196 on the ES at 4813. If we at least had been saying the whole time don't disregard this because the price action was close to the continuum the whole time. It would have been giving us a reason to get up here from the October 22 lows. It wasn't the expected route but it sure does feel like a top and total completement of the move up from October 22 lows.

Last updated 4 months ago

brian1469 said:

CS37 said:

Interesting self-reflection by Peter on his overly negative viewpoint, over the last year. Note at 0m 0sec of this video:

1. NASDAQ Composite historically did show a false downside continuation projection in early 2020 (i.e. COVID crash) that ultimately was never met and was eventually invalidated. If you use the Web App to go back to that early 2020 timeframe, you'll see that the comparable @ES and @YM projections called the bottom of the COVID crash reasonably well. No false downside projection was given by either @ES nor @YM. Only the NASDAQ related projections (@NQ, QQQ, and now NASDAQ Composite) demonstrate the same shared systematic weakness in that they ALL show this false downside continuation projection for large downmoves, like the COVID crash. That was one clue that the downside projection given in late 2022 -- and that Peter stuck with throughout 2023 -- was suspect.
2. Peter has recently shown how to use RSI as a divergence indicator to "flag" a potential top happening now. Note that there was also a RSI divergence in late 2022 -- but this time "flagging" a potential bottom -- which eventually was fully realized. So, another clue that the bear-case needed additional supporting evidence, and was suspect without it.

Finally, many subscribers here have noted that Peter seemed to ignore the upside cycle projections that were given throughout 2023.

My own observation of Peter's cycle projection technique is that typically, "things start small". We'll start to see some initial projections at the 3.5 / 4 or 7 / 8 daily offsets, which then lead to further cycle projections in the same direction at larger offsets. Projections that appear at the very large offsets, like the 100 / 110 offset projection seen in this video at 0m 0sec, must necessarily be supported by either a cascade of cycle projections in the same direction at lower offsets, or a series of loop projections at lower offsets.

My recollection of 2023 was that the actual cascade of cycle projections that were seen during 2023 were nearly all to the upside, not downside. Thus contributing to the weight of evidence against the bear-case, and further casting suspicion about the 100 / 110 offset projection. Not to mention, raising the ire of many subscribers here, who believe in the cycle projection technique, but are not used to Peter ignoring them.

Finally, at 9m 0sec of the video, Peter shows the now infamous ratio analysis that we've all seen over the last few months.

Speaking for myself only, here. When I "lock into an idea" that no matter what happens, I insist that the idea remains valid despite growing and compelling evidence against it, I know I've lost my intellectual honesty and situational awareness. Invariably, when I look back several weeks later after FINALLY abandoning the flawed idea, I realize that my ego was somehow at play. I have admitted to misinterpreting my own systems, and I can relate to Peter when he does the same. Only he, in the quiet of some evening in the future, can come to terms with what happened.

I'm a long-term subscriber to Stockmarket Cycles, and so long as Peter focusses on that as the primary technique that he relies upon, I'm good. But, the minute I see a change to the name of this website to Stockmarket Ratios, I'm out ... :P

The one thing I learned from all this and I hope Peter starts acting like these still need to be paid attention to is the long term projections when the get invalidated and the price action is following the continuum and not getting very far from it. They still need to be paid attention to as to what can happen. It might not what be what you totally expect but still say these could still happen.

Just today we are hitting the 196 on the ES at 4813. If we at least had been saying the whole time don't disregard this because the price action was close to the continuum the whole time. It would have been giving us a reason to get up here from the October 22 lows. It wasn't the expected route but it sure does feel like a top and total completement of the move up from October 22 lows.

Brian: To your point, at 1m 48sec in the video when Peter shows the Wilshire 5000 index, the market price action is near overlapping the continuum for almost all of 2023. And, the resulting raw cycle projection picture is a mess, and very hard to interpret. It appears Peter may have applied "nick filters" to clean-it-up, but the question remains. Does applying the "nick filters" here in this case -- when things are so closely packed -- simply amount to amplifying whatever perceptual bias you happen to have at the time? In Peter's case, amplifying his bearish perceptions throughout 2023, to his (and our) detriment?

Perhaps a better approach might have been to interpret the mess of cycle projections as telling a valuable story. That there are conflicting influences in the market and stubborn adherence to any one scenario is a very risky strategy under these conditions. We had to be flexible in our thinking, and if we were, we made some $$$. If we weren't flexible in our thinking ... well, we all know where that ends up, don't we?!!

Last updated 4 months ago

CS37 that is exactly what I am saying it seems that projections 48 and above need to be looked at this way sometimes. If you remember the 48 daily in the summer got invalidated barely then it ended up being the top for the July move. Now the 189/194 daily got invalidated and it looks like it is going to be the top for this leg of the move. It also is the highest projection we got from the October 22 low so it has me thinking this could be a top that means something.

CS I will also add if you look what happened at the October 23 low this year on the 189/194 it is amazing how it bend but did not break I think that could have been a clue.

One way we can look at this also is if we do turn from here the 100/110 that Peter has given all the attention to have actually done something similar in the opposite way.

It really seems to be on these real long term projections that if the price action is not falling to far from the continuum invalidations need to be taken less seriously. This really is just my observation from the last couple years

brian1469 said:

CS37 that is exactly what I am saying it seems that projections 48 and above need to be looked at this way sometimes. If you remember the 48 daily in the summer got invalidated barely then it ended up being the top for the July move. Now the 189/194 daily got invalidated and it looks like it is going to be the top for this leg of the move. It also is the highest projection we got from the October 22 low so it has me thinking this could be a top that means something.

CS I will also add if you look what happened at the October 23 low this year on the 189/194 it is amazing how it bend but did not break I think that could have been a clue.

One way we can look at this also is if we do turn from here the 100/110 that Peter has given all the attention to have actually done something similar in the opposite way.

It really seems to be on these real long term projections that if the price action is not falling to far from the continuum invalidations need to be taken less seriously. This really is just my observation from the last couple years

Yeah, I agree. I kinda "average" my expectations between the original cycle projection that was invalidated, and the later resulting projections. It does seem that the market price action still respects the invalidated original projection more-times-than-not, as you are suggesting.

Well we finally got to 4813 on the ES the 189/184 from the October 22 low. I think we need a close below 4800 and that could be all she wrote

Last updated 4 months ago

brian1469 said:

Well we finally got to 4813 on the ES the 189/184 from the October 22 low. I think we need a close below 4800 and that could be all she wrote

Brian: Watch USD (DXY). Could be a terminal move into the 101.75 area to test the recent low. If it is, and a USD rebound occurs thereafter, would be supportive of your thesis for a reversal to the downside by the stock markets. By the way, on the DXY Web App the weekly 39/40 offset is the only downside projection that has not yet been met. The projection here is 101.18 to 99.81.

So, we might be close to a reversal, here.

Last updated 4 months ago

Peter is not honest again. on Web app there is Higher projection on NDX, SPX. Remind me how VIX ended up same fate NDX/DOW is ending up.

Be Honest with projections.

NEW

ALL

TIME

HIGHS

BEAR

SOUP

STILL

BEING

SERVED

XXSPOWER127 said:

NEW

ALL

TIME

HIGHS

BEAR

SOUP

STILL

BEING

SERVED

L M A O !!!

/NQ TO 18000 /YM TO 40000 /RTY TO WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE /BITCOIN TO BAZILLIONSS

SANTA