Nominal model vs. Initial Cyclic Model

I intuitively favor the ICM over Hurst’s nominal model because I, possibly irrationally, favor something generated organically over a procrustean bed that suited Hurst for some issues he examined back in the 1960s.

How do you choose?

Nice Gary! That’s the infamous how many jelly beans in the jar experiment. That is why Hurst used the “average” of his observations, whether they be comb filter outputs, Fourier transform amplitude outputs, or visually evident highs and lows in the price action. They all yield the same approximate result.

This reminds me of one of my favorite subjects, the Wisdom of Crowds as it relates to markets, but there is a danger we will get too far off topic.

I will guess at the meaning of your parable and the accompanying graph because I don’t mind appearing foolish if I get it wrong. You are saying the nominal model averages out the discrepancies between any individual issue being examined? Perhaps so, and perhaps it is very close, but is it close enough?