THREAD FULL!!! Bob_Brinker_Discussion_41,600 is CLOSED!!!!!

Top 1543. Jun 3, 2002 10:25 AM

» Kirk - Re: Re: Re: Model Time Frame

In response to message posted by walkerman:

...."the validity of a comment is directly proportional to the number of basherbot comments it triggers".......

so when Rande posts scripture and you bash him for it, saying it proves nothing, then you are conceeding his point? You are a piece of work.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1544. Jun 3, 2002 11:09 AM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by Fred2000:

LOL. Bob could come right out and say he's a piece of s*** and he's just in this to take people's money and Dija would stand up and argue with him.

No Bob, say it ain't so!

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1545. Jun 3, 2002 11:14 AM

» ACousins - Re: Re Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2 misses

In response to message posted by Kirk:

I think Brinker was using the strong support level of $75 to base his CTR call but he says he doesn't "use charts" which means he says he doesn't use support and resistance (which has a proven statistical effectiveness).

He does use support and resistance levels but thinks the rest of the squiggly lines are bunkum. However, he still talks about oversold this and divergences that and internal this and such so it's bizarre to say the least.

I think this is where he's full of it. He's too lazy and too stubborn to learn more about TA so he FAILS to see clear indications of danger in early November. Or worse, he sees them but says to Junior, 'I can just magically reset the CTR and fans like Dija will just let it slide'

LOL.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1546. Jun 3, 2002 11:15 AM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by dija:

"AC, I can only characterize the above statement as stupid. The CTR was NOT 3 months old in Jan. 2001. A CTR is a counter-trend rally. There was no counter-trend rally. Bob's PREDICTION of a CTR was 3 months old. The CTR had not started and did not start in January or February. After being wrong from Oct. through Dec., Bob then said the CTR would START in Jan. and would last 3 to 6 months.

The absolute maximum time he gave for a CTR was 6 months. The absolute minimum time he gave for a CB was six months. That is NOT what a rational person would call overlap."

He never gave any "absolute maximum" time for a counter trend rally. You made that up. He did say at one time the time frame for a cyclical bull market was 6 months to either two or three years and I don't remember the back end number.

BECAUSE OF THE COUNTER TREND RALLY FAILURE AND COMPARISON TO WHAT HE CLAIMS ABOUT CYCLICAL BULLS THE MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS THAT BRINKER JUST ARBITRARILY GOT RID OF ANY MENTION OF MONTHS IN HIS CYCLICAL BULL HYPE AND MOVED THE TIME FRAME FROM ONE TO THREE YEARS.

Or do you believe that the model changed AGAIN and thus the time frame for a cyclical bull had to be altered by 6 months? Be real!!

As far as duration the actual event and the event occuring during the time frame of his call, Brinker HAS NEVER BEEN PRECISE. That is also by design. Recall when the market moved against him, he EXTENDED THE TIME FRAME. He certainly never said that the COUNTER TREND RALLY WOULD LAST TWO TO FOUR MONTHS. He was hoping that within that time frame a rally would take place. It the market would have gone up 30% for 2 weeks and then fell like it has, he would be claiming victory with every call. So his "time frame" for a Counter trend rally was the time frame in which he expected it to occur. He EXTENDED that time frame from 2 to 4 months from October to 6 months from January for a "time frame for his Counter trend rally" of 9 months.

When he calls his "cyclical bull" (unless he does right after the fact like he did the QQQ trade), I would expect that you will see him hemming and hawing about whether or not it will last 1 to 3 years or whether his bull will take place in that 1 to 3 year period. Brinker is foggy by design.

Since we know the model only looks out 1 to 3 months, you who believes Brinker has a worthwhile model surely would not want him to stay invested in a market that his model says is going down, do you? Thus there can not be any defined time frame for his next call in advance. Thus the Cyclical bull is his hope, his dream, his newsletter sales tool. Just like the Counter trend rally.

Any attempt to define what the tooth fairy looks like compared to the easter bunny is the same silliness that is involved in you trying to explain the difference in Brinker's methodology involved in calling Countertrend rallies and Cyclical bulls. HE HAS NEVER IN HIS LIFE DONE EITHER SUCCESSFULLY!!

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1547. Jun 3, 2002 11:27 AM

» walkerman - Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Time Frame

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Kirk...outta yer league again. Since this is the Brinker thread, the walkerman principle refers to brinkerbasherbots. I guess you're one of those types that doesn't understand the simple. Besides which, there's a huge difference between bashing and countering biblical arguments with scientific facts. You gotta a ways to go before you can debate with me. I may be a peice of work, but when it comes to intelligent debate, you're a piece of....oh, well, never mind. I don't want to drop to your level.

-- posted by walkerman

Top 1548. Jun 3, 2002 11:45 AM

» JIMMY62 - CTR 2000

In response to message posted by ACousins:

January's MT. "We continue to view short-term price weakness in Nasdaq 100 shares...Clearly, the Nasdaq indexes have moved lower than we anticipated in recent weeks. However, this has not altered our expectation that a major bear market rally will develop going forward...."

February MT: The timeline for the Nasdaq led countertrend rally remains three to six months as measured from the starting point on January 3.

March MT: In our view, the probabilities favor a three to six month bear market rally phase beginning shortly.

April MT: We expect the Nasdaq Composite and Nasdaq 100 index to stage a significant recovery over the next several months.

May MT: We continue to believe the Nasdaq has the potential to recover in the months ahead.

June MT: For subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ) shares, we recommend holding these shares for future recovery...

July MT: We also recommend subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ) shares hold for price recovery...

August MT: We also recommend subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ) shares hold for recovery...

ETC.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 1549. Jun 3, 2002 11:56 AM

» Jonathon - Re: CTR 2000

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

jimmy, can you add to your post the time projections from the october bulletin, november 2000 and december 2000 newsletters said? then it would be a complete history. thanks

-- posted by Jonathon

Top 1550. Jun 3, 2002 12:10 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Time Frame

In response to message posted by walkerman:

"You gotta a ways to go before you can debate with me."

Yesiree Walkerman, you sure have the record in my experience of a person claiming they are more intelligent than everyone else. If it were true would one really feel compelled to keep saying it? Does Michael Jordan have to keep reminding people he can shoot hoops? Does a beautiful woman have to keep telling men that she is? Something to consider.

Now however great you are at 'debating', you are damn poor at answering a simple question. While braggin on your intelligence you told AC that you knew that on those interior pages of the marketimer you knew just where to find everything about Brinker's stock picks. You even mentioned UTEK at the time. Now I asked you simply IN WHAT ISSUE, ON WHAT PAGE OF MARKETIMER, DID BRINKER DISCLOSE THAT UTEK, THE ONLY COMPANY HE HAD AS A BUY AT THE TIME WAS PAYING HIM AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS TOUTING THE STOCK? There that's real simple for one so bright as you.

You also said
". Since this is the Brinker thread,".....

I agree, since this is indeed the Brinker thread why don't you stop badgering Kirk, and telling people how bright you are, and simply answer my question so your beloved guru is cleared of his Conflict of Interest in UTEK??

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1551. Jun 3, 2002 12:46 PM

» ACousins - Re: CTR 2000

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

ROTFLMAO

Or I would be if I had been on the side of the angels on the CTR smile

September 01:

"Making this transaction in taxable accounts for tax purposes is consistant with our recommendation to hold QQQ shares for price recovery over time...The switch into XLK...is solely for the purpose of realizing short-term tax losses for current or future use..."

Yep, ladies and germs, he sold the QQQs and then BOUGHT THEM AGAIN. They closed at 34.10 on 9/10/01. They peaked over 43 intraday in early December. If they close at 29 today, that's another 15% drop from the wash sale days.

October 01

"We continue our long-standing policy of not selling into weakness and we recommend subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) shares hold these shares as we expect them to trade at much higher levels..."

December 01

"...we recommend holding in anticipation of higher price levels during the next cyclical bull market..."

January 02

"we prefer to hold existing positions in the expectation that the next cyclical bull..."

February 02

"...hold these shares for recovery during the next cyclical bull..."

March 02

"...can hold these shares in anticipation of much higher prices in the next cyclical bull..."

April 02

"We are also retaining our hold rating..."

-- posted by ACousins