I use inverse H&S as a term to describe formations that look like that. However, in the strict textbook interpretation of the pattern, I may not be using the term correctly. However, the result is the same, so who really cares?
It's easier to say "inverse H&S" than "Bullish Consolidating Pattern" or "Cup and Handle" or "continuation head and shoulders pattern". You guys know what the heck I'm seeing and what I mean. When I mention them, I reckon about 90% of the time they follow through.
I got the same crap for a very long time about the end of month Dow play. I post proof and it still seems like religion to many folks.
I post a ton of charts, share my views, and that probably makes me an easy target for nit-picking over nomenclature. I really don't care in the end, as my account is what's important and not how someone views the opinions I share.
I guess I should post this to mchjc, but you were just more eloquent in your response.
As for SBUX, if I'd had more than 2-minutes to respond (I wanted to respond before the close) I would have noticed the symmetry in the daily chart of the 49.14 and 49.28 lows. The beginning and end of the visit to the $49 level in Feb. lasted a little under a month. Same with the recent drop to 50. I only noticed the price action to the right of the 49.28 July low and not the price action to the right of the 49.14 Feb. low.
Symmetry, another term not understood or respected when applied to charts, but a damn fine way for me to see the way things are going in the future.
stockcharts.com[e,a]daclyiay[d20041112,20051231][pc9!c13!c20!d20,2!c50!c200!b50!b200!f][vc60][iLa12,26,9!Lh5,5!Li10,10!Lp14,3,3!Ll14!Lo14!Lb14!Le5,10,1!Lh89,34!Lh45,17!Li180,68!Lp3,2,2!Lb5]&pref=G |
