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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (12835)	12/12/2001 10:25:31 PM
From: DlphcOracl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

"scenario" vs. "alternate scenario" -- a pox on both of them. If this week was supposed to show a significant decline, culminating on Dec. 14th, it is most unimpressive. Frankly, I doubt we go below 1900 between now and end of the month. I would consider a correction down to 1800 to 1850 range as manna from heaven. If it does not occur by end of next week, forget about a near term correction. Just my opinion.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (12835)	12/13/2001 6:47:47 AM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev: Here is your "original" scenario currently: "Jay, about a 300 naz drop from the top (we already did almost 100 of those intraday by the low today) would be the "minimal" requirement by the end of December to keep the original scenario intact, that would be to the 1765 level, since I think that 1793 is a strong support area, I would even "accept" a slightly milder decline. To make the turnips "completely happy" and keep the "to da moon" scenario for next year, I really need 1650 or so on the retenchment, but when was the last time I got what wanted? Scenario II [alternative scenario] will come into effect only if we do not get within shouting distance of 1793 before the end of the month." Here you say you need 1650 in December to keep the "original scenario" intact. But I thought your original scenario required 1450 in December? You also say here if we do not get to 1793, then the "alternative scenario" is in play. But look below. Here is your alternative scenario: "If a new scenario comes into play, than the low in December will be probably around 1625 (nominal 1628), with a small bounce later this month from 1782 (nominal 1793) (a two legs decline to the 14th and a final third leg to the 21st, after a minor bounce around the 14th). Then a sharp rally (year end rally and "January effect" combined) to form a double top at the 1920/40 area again and a very weak February, early March to once more, the low 1400 (1458 nominal, 1425 max target right now, that target could change to a new low under some circumstances). That the best I can do right now. By the way, this is the "alternative model", if we do not start and get down here early next week and accelerate the movement down early in December. Since the last "alternative model" worked perfectly (coalescence of the late August and October lows in September), maybe it will this time as well." In this post, the alternative scenario is in play if 1625 is met in December but, up above, the "original scenario" has around a 1650 target in December too. I would assume then the the alternative target scenario has changed and, so has the original scenario, as defined by targets; otherwise, the scenarios are indistinguishable as defined by targets at least. Maybe you have a new and improved original scenario as well as a new and improved alternative scenario?