Very good analysis in your recent article. Please tell me how you develop and use your time cycle analysis. Are the time cycle’s duration, beginning and end based on the previous short term cycles and durations? Have you studied this analysis somewhere else or is it from simply observing the previous cycles and then extrapolating?
This is key, and would really help a short term trader like myself protect the profits he makes in the upswings and also profit from the coming downswings which as you know can be very deep in miners and silver.
Thank you for your kind comments, much appreciated.
For years, we have been studying the precious metals market and other markets in order to find anything that could help us analyze them. Cyclical analysis is one of the more interesting tools. The main reason for that is that it often works amazingly well (just like we've seen what happened in silver - it formed a major bottom right at the long-term cycle, which was known months ahead).
Generally, we observe which cycles really (!) worked in the past, see if there were no significant events that could have impacted it in a meaningful way, and if we find something, we test it (see if it works at least once again) and then we feature it. From time to time we check to see if the cycle changed and if so, we adjust it accordingly. Additionally, we regularly check for new cycles. In our analysis, the long-, medium- and short-term cycles are not dependent on each other and they can intersect.
Generally, most cycles work on an “extreme-extreme basis with a slight drift toward similarity”. This means that no matter if a cycle is based on lows or tops or top-low combinations, the most likely outcome is that we are going to see a top or a bottom at the next cycle (thus we call them turning points). However, if a one type of turning points (say, tops) is seen almost all the time in a given cyclical pattern, then it’s more probable than the coming turning point will be a top as well. For instance, if we had a top-top-top-top-top combination and were projecting what’s going to happen at the next turning point, then we would attribute the probabilities of tops and bottoms in the following way: top (50%), bottom (30%) or no extreme at all (20%). In other words, we would have 80% probability for some kind of extreme and it would be more likely that it would be a top than a bottom, but still, it would be more likely that a bottom would be seen than no extreme at all.
Back
