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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Susan G who wrote (32657)	3/20/2002 6:28:21 PM
From: nikko_thyme	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52237

Susan, Today, Donald said it was not negated. Re:"was the fact that the move did not extend to over 50% of the candle body make it still valid?" Yes, it touched it, but was not enough to negate it. The rule of thumb expected move down for the Three Crows Pattern is 1/2 of the combined three candles. This should be measured from the bottom of the third candle. nik

To: Susan G who wrote (32657)	3/23/2002 7:48:30 AM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52237

Susan, Sorry for getting back so late, but I rarely check SI anymore other than when Im opening up the chat-room. >>>> Was the 3 black crows on the SOX negated yesterday, or was the fact that the move did not extend to over 50% of the candle body make it still valid? <<<< The 3-BLACK CROWs are far from being firmly negated. To totally negate the 3-BLACK CROWs the SOX would have to break above the the 1st CROW. As for the 50% level, my comment that once the 50% point was crossed then the 3-CROWs would START to lose reliability, but I never said that it would be completely negated. I guess I did not explain it clearly. The SOX did cross the 50% mark, but just intraday and closed below it. With using candlestick, Im mainly more concerned about the body, not the shadows, in this type of situation. I realise that some use the shadows, Im not one of them - in this case. Hope that explains it. seeya