Greg,
It has been stated by others much wiser and experienced in this subject than myself (Robert Edwards / John McGee) that "stocks tend to fall of their own weight; it takes volume (buying interest) to push them upward." From this axiomatic observation your up-and-down gap search might not need as much pushing to the downside, tho volume in either direction could suggest a possible price acceleration for you to reach a faster exit and hopefully realize a quicker profit. I follow your basic thinking here and hope that as you explore this specific situation that each step taken will lead to another question and the building process will continue until you feel it has arrived where you want it to be. I'll postpone a bit just now on the Doji star scan setup until this current one has been allayed.
Since my earlier response to this gap scan question it looks like some dander has been flying. I found myself caught up in a similar predicament last week when questioning Richard about a technical issue that related to a problem I was having with Fibonacci retracements in MS 6.5. He interpreted my comments as a criticism of his specific expertise, when they were not meant to be. This confusion / misunderstanding has cost me his assistance later on down the road. And so it goes.
Since reading many posts from the beginning of the various threads at SI and finding a disproportionate number of generous people sharing their valuable ideas and specialized knowledge to enhance everyones success in this skill, I have always sensed an underlying dicotomy between some who want specific questions responded to and those that would assume a more formal conceptual approach to TA discipline. As those that speak to Richard's defense have noted, he really is a very generous fellow with 30 years of battle knowledge and a seasoned expertise in these matters. I personally find most of what he shares here to be thought provoking and very directionally guiding. But his style can be likened to my old business law prof who saw no reason to simply serve up the student an immediate answer to any question when the end results of their own research would provide a much more personally rewarding basis for similar future inquiries. Call it the quasi-formalized didactic syndrome. Not exactly wooden rulers slapping students bare knuckles, but sometimes it seems about as close as it comes across a 15" monitor with 28.8K connectivity.
I respect this reserve, but I also wouldn't like to be compelled to read thru 50,000 posts in 10 different threads simply to have a specific question answered, unless it was my personal desire, as it was, to devote the time to this endeavor and many other outside readings on the subject. Is this not the age of electronic gizmos, generation X'ers, CNBC and so much instant gratification? And this is also a free speech forum I believe. That's why I prefer, if it is requested, to respond directly to a question with an answer; and let the results be judged in the hands of those who request it, if that is their inclination. No heavy admonitions or maybe just a few cautionary words. The end result might not be so judiciously planned and calculated in an educational sense, but if someone wants something specific, my belief is provide it to them if possible and don't play heirarcal knowledge games. We may all profit one day from others' fresh ideas even if they might seem to be reenactments of our own past foibles. This forum should primarily be educative, but education comes in many forms.
Is it a mistake to let someone fly with a concept that we believe might crash and burn, or will a simple admonition to "do your homework" be enough to satisfy those that prefer not to do the research that others feel is an absolute necessity? Call it as you see it all, but only that we may all gain from this experience.
Craig |
