Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : VerticalNet, Inc. [VERT] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neverenough who wrote (801)	2/15/2000 9:57:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1094

Anything is possible. I hear people say the 180's are possible. Now you say 170's. The 50 DMA is around the mid 170's, but VERT hasn't touched it's 50 DMA since Sep '99. I don't see why it should now. Who is going to say 160's? Someone acted shocked that I loaded up on some CMRC in the low 150's. They said something about waiting for 142. Well buying at 152 instead of 142 just made you 16 points in a few days. You might not have the courage to get back in if it hits 172, 182, 192, etc. and never reaches 142. The next logical place for VERT to test is the high of 182 or so that was taken out. I wouldn't (and didn't) wait. I bought some in the low 220's, and then bought even more than my first bunch slightly under 200 today. My next buy will be around the low 180's, but VERT might just not make it there. I think it is oversold and due for a rally by the end of the week. VERT has been selling off on really low volume for a while and the last 2 days it's traded down on above avg volume. That means some weak hands finally can't take the pain and are being flushed out. VERT has a tendency to correct for about 3 weeks, and we will be there at the end of the week. IMO, I wouldn't wait for 170's if you don't have any. I'm buying on a 20 point down scale. VERT is still going to see 400 short-term and I don't want to miss the ride up trying to save 20 points.

To: neverenough who wrote (801)	2/15/2000 10:12:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 1094

Well VERT officially closed the gap so everyone can dance a jig. But here is some support of my stance on filling the gaps. Gary B Smith shows a chart where MSFT never filled a gap up on heavy volume. It's quadrupled since then. From TSC: thestreet.com Question No. 2b: Why didn't you wait for the gap to be filled, since gaps are always filled? . But, if there's one hot button I have, it's technical analysis adages that some yo-yo thought sounded good, but for which there is no statistical proof! First and foremost amongst those is the "gaps-always-get filled" homily. Boy, I really hate that one. Why? Because, a) there's no proof, and, b) it doesn't take into account one's time frame. Essentially it's like saying: "The market always collapses 50%." What, every year? Every 10 years? Every 200 years? Need an example? Let's look at Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq - news), circa April 1997.