Hi, I am Steve Miller - AKA Slim

I have been a student of JM Hurst for the past 43 years. I have been a member of the CBOE, CBoT Chicago Merc and one of the first Off-the-floor traders. I post one or two of my cycle charts daily on twitter. Here is an example:


I look forward to chatting with members here,
Full disclosure - I do have a business in the trading/financial arena
I want to be sure I do not violate any of the rules of engagement on this site,

I can see I have not yet discovered how to correctly post charts :wink:

Now I figured it out!

Welcome. My view on US30 is in line with your chart.

My chart was on SPX. Are you saying your 30-year forecast is correlated or inversely correlated (how they used to trade until recent weeks).

This not a 30 year correlation. It is a Hurst’s model and it is a cycle composite of 8 cycles. Us30 is another designation for DJIA. I have been using Hurst and Garrett analysis for over 34 years.


In those 43 years did you ever read ‘The Profit Magic of Stock Transaction Timing’?

I ask because you have non time lagged low pass filters on your chart.

Aside from that looks like you have the 40 day nominal wave in evidence there.


I read “Profit Magic of Stock Transaction Timing” in 1975. I have about 20 copies, and it sits on my bookshelf and is visible in all of my videos. It framed my study of cycle analysis, which as taken an opposite direction from most cycle analysts - to an art form vs a computer driven model. This won’t be popular, I believe; I basically reject the usefulness of the “Principal of Nominality.” It creates a rigidness in analysis and is basically nullified by the “Principal of Variance.” And, through countless analytical trials and errors, I have learned that each symbol has its own cycle rhythm, linked, of course, to like securities and indexes, through the “Principal of Synchronicity.” My analytical universe is around 400 symbols (Focus on 80), with the work you see on my charts done by hand; that is the method I teach. (I do have an assistant analyst).

Thank you for your response!


Welcome, Slim! I’ve been watching you for a few years on tastytrade and youtube. Keep up the good work.

Thanks very much, Roy!

Slim I agree partially with you about the “Nominal Model”

First the term “Model” is subliminally dangerous . It is not a “Model” but an Average … at the Time 1970/1975

which “Model” either because Hurst shows us 3 different “Models” - closely related but differents

For me the “Nominal Model” is much more a " Discovery Model"

It would be useful to discuss methodologies to understand how much is Financial support XYZ is close or far from this Discovery Model and why.

Anyway I agree with you that with the “Principle of Variation” you can justify whatever you want … or need.


hi want to ask if there is a way to enlarge this chart thank you

Hi Steve,

Bob Magnuson here, I have been following and participating in Forex with a number of different tools over the years; more than 10. I have been trying to get a handle on using both the Sentient Trader Intraday as well as well as the charting tool for Metatrader. Do you have an opinion on which of these tools or both I should be focused on? David F. seems to be of the opinion that Sentient Trader albeit buggy is the better tool. If you have been at this 43 years (JM Hurst), I would guess you have a pretty firm opinion. Nice to make your acqaintance.


Bob Magnuson

Slim I agree with you on the Nominal Model

I Think the name is subliminally incorrect. Initial Model or Discovery Model seems to be the best name.

Bob, generally, I do not like automated cycle tools. They do not adjust well to changing market conditions. My work is all done manually. I am not well versed on Metatrader. Sentient trader is a very well accepted cycle analysis platform. They have the ability to adjust to market changes better than others. Still, they are tied to nominal values, which I believe have little value.

I like those names much better! Thanks for sharing!

Hi Steve, thanks for your input. I agree that any tool that doesn’t change with the market condition is probably of little value. Having said that, are you using Sentient Trader as your “manual” methodology and changing the nominal model to something else? Or are you using a different methodology altogether? Are you generally supportive of the JM Hurst methods as a way to accurately predict turns (troughs) in the market over other methods and/or are you using other tools as well? I am just trying to get a feel for where to focus my efforts. The Hurst methods seem logically correct as opposed to most other methods using indicators and such which are usually composed on price anyway. Thanks for your help and opinions.



The nominal model espoused by Hurst in both PM and the cycles course is simply that - a ‘nominal’ model. Prices show a tendency to approach these AVERAGES time and time again. Osscilations around these due to the principle of variation / noise / fundamental interaction provide the fluctuation + or -. You must understand the concepts outlined in PM and other Hurst material to really use ST to its greatest extent, IMHO.

That said, a solid understanding of Hurst’s work, your brain and a set of lagged moving averages can be very powerful alone.

Hurst Nominal(s) Models

Fact is there are 3 Cyclic or Nominal “Model(s)” we can find in Hurst works

a) – the Nominal Model described Chapter 2, page 33 of his book « Profit Magic of Stock Transaction Timing” published in 1970.

b) the Nominal Model described in the Course published in 1973 / 1975 by his service to investors named Cyclitec.

Lesson N° 1 – How Price Action Works – page 29 to 33

c) the Simplified Model used in the same course

why 3 “Models” ?
what are the differences ?
did Hurst explained the slippage from one “model” to the others ?

The Nominal model in Profit Magic – 1970


Hereunder you will find the same initial ” Nominal Model” expressed :

– in calendar days (CD) (I have not taken into account the bi-sextiles years)

– in theoretical trading days (TD) (5 trading days (TD) per week

– in “real” trading days based on an average annualized count issued from a study of an american trader rounded to 256 Trading Days (TD) .

I use also this “average” – 256 TD – for my time scaling in my Gann Studies .


Hereunder you will find the Nominal Model described in the Cyclitec Services Course


Hereunder you will find the ” Nominal Model” listed in the Cyclitec Course expressed : – in calendar days (CD) (I have not taken into account the bi-sextiles years) – in theoretical trading days (TD) (5 trading days (TD) per week – in “real” trading days based on an average annualized count issued from a study of an american trader rounded to 256 Trading Days (TD) .

If you compare both Nominal Models the difference between the initial Model of Profit Magic and the Nominal Model proposed in the Cyclitec Course, you can observe that :

– the 3 years Cycle,
– the 1 year cycle .
– the 6 months cycle
– the 3 months cycle

have disappeared without explanation

Then you observe the appearance in the model of cycles expressed in days


The Simplified Model (for the Dummies)


The same “Simplified Model” expressed in calendar and trading days


Quote :

The practical result of this kind of variation is that the nominal cyclic model is useful (as are all the rest of the basic cyclic principles) as a necessary guide —but a specific, or current, cyclic model must be tailored to each issue in the process of analyzing a trading situation.

Hurst Course – Chapter 1 – How Price Action works

1 Like

I continue to believe, through over 40 years of experience, that the “Principal of Nominality” is nullified by “Principal of Variation.”

I discuss this in my 20-module video workshop on Cycle Analysis.