A bit over a week ago the SPX met all projections on min basis, and we therefore called a top (though with room to go higher as long term offsets upper limits are 4340 area). Then we had the triple witching event and this creating a higher projection (by crossing the offset from the “dip”) and the narrative becomes “we have not reached a top” and prices can go higher. It weakens the entire cycle methodology when we follow the notion of it’s a top until it isn’t a top.

Hsiang76 said:

A bit over a week ago the SPX met all projections on min basis, and we therefore called a top (though with room to go higher as long term offsets upper limits are 4340 area). Then we had the triple witching event and this creating a higher projection (by crossing the offset from the “dip”) and the narrative becomes “we have not reached a top” and prices can go higher. It weakens the entire cycle methodology when we follow the notion of it’s a top until it isn’t a top.

I think you are being unfair to the projections, Hsiang. Price projection theory gives us price projections. I think you will agree those projections have shown a high degree of accuracy since we started this service well over a year ago. We made it clear when SPX had met all minimum upside projections that the NDX had not so it was difficult to assess that an important top had been made. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of price projection theory is that you cannot be wrong for long because projections will either be met or invalidated. Are you aware of any other technical market theory that very consistently gives accurate price projections? I am not!

Peter Eliades said:

Hsiang76 said:

A bit over a week ago the SPX met all projections on min basis, and we therefore called a top (though with room to go higher as long term offsets upper limits are 4340 area). Then we had the triple witching event and this creating a higher projection (by crossing the offset from the “dip”) and the narrative becomes “we have not reached a top” and prices can go higher. It weakens the entire cycle methodology when we follow the notion of it’s a top until it isn’t a top.

I think you are being unfair to the projections, Hsiang. Price projection theory gives us price projections. I think you will agree those projections have shown a high degree of accuracy since we started this service well over a year ago. We made it clear when SPX had met all minimum upside projections that the NDX had not so it was difficult to assess that an important top had been made. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of price projection theory is that you cannot be wrong for long because projections will either be met or invalidated. Are you aware of any other technical market theory that very consistently gives accurate price projections? I am not!

Fair enough Peter, you do have a point. However, whenever i watch your videos commenting on the SP500, i cant help but wonder, in light i see so many GREY boxes (ie invalidated projections) on the charts with different offset periods, how exactly accurate are these SP500 price projections? Especially, in a bull market it is more of interest on the downside projection accuracy. In contrast, to meet upside projections in a bull market, one can simply "buy and hold" and also capture the price difference between when an upside target has been generated and until it has been achieved. You have repeatedly shown the TSLA and GLD statistics many times lately (and the IWM), but very rarely the NDX and SPX. Maybe you can also show those stats for a change? thanks