[dpaterso]

Heeey, good stuff (I don't think you'll be dissapointed. At least I hope not)!!!

I'm kinda hoping that we can all start doing some analysis one of these days.

For example:

I'm 'having a theory':

Would it be feasable to say that when an instruments price closes above it's previous HSP or below it's previous LSP (which would both be entry signals) then it has indeed changed direction and when you're being given a signal to stop and reverse because the price has retraced enough so as to give rise to a 60 point drop on the 'Trailing Index SAR' then could this be viewed as 'corrective'??? Thoughts anyone???

Also:

There are one or two things that I HAVE NOT been able to figure out and they're worrying me terribly:

Nowhere in book (for the SI System) are you 'told' when to 'get out'. Your intial ('tentative') entry point is signalled when the price has closed above or below the previous HSP or LSP. From then on you stop and reverse as indicated by the 'Trailing Index SAR'. My problem is this: if you just keep stopping and reversing then your actually trading the 'Trailing Index SAR' and not necessarily the 'swings'. Do you agree with me? Comments?

If you're using the CSI to evaluate the different instruments and let's say that you find 10 instruments that are high on the CSI scale and you are being given entry signals. What then happens if a couple of days later those same 10 instruments are NO LONGER high on the CSI scale. Is THAT a signal to 'get out' OR do you just continue to stop and reverse as per the 'Trailing Index SAR' which (I think) is dangerous for the simple reason that should the CSI rating drop the instruments is then in effect becoming 'rangebound' so to just keep stopping and reversing if the instrument is now trading in a range is just looking to 'feed your broker' as they say in the 'classics'. Agree with me on this one? Ideas? Thoughts? Solutions?

Try as I might I don't seem to come up with answers to the above that satisfy my logic so I'm 'throwing this open' to debate (which, after all, is the reason for this thread in the first place).