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: ajtj99 who wrote (41144)	11/21/2002 11:05:49 PM
From: DayTraderKidd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

like i said, I have not personally seen an inverted H&S since this bear market started. <<I'll give you the answer - no more than 3% upside potential, and a drop that leads to new lower lows that take out the recent bear market lows.>> are you saying then that the composite is going to top out around 1510 and then head to a lower low??

To: ajtj99 who wrote (41144)	11/21/2002 11:17:57 PM
From: Joseph Silent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

no more than 3% upside potential AT, I don't really want to butt in, but I'd like to suggest that its best not stated as a theorem (a definite). It's based on data and, as such, is empirical. It may have a high likelihood of occurring based on data (perhaps as high as 100%) but it cannot be guaranteed to occur in the future. A rather simple but, hopefully, explanatory example is the following. Suppose that on your daily evening mile-long walks, your legs have never buckled under you and made you fall on your behind. If you use that data to predict the probability that your legs will not buckle before you complete walking a mile tomorrow or next week, you'll get the probability to be zero (since your data says that your legs have never buckled before). You must realize, however, that there is no guarantee that your legs won't buckle tomorrow or next week (and I'm really not using age as the reason). A single new data-point can change an empirically defined probability 1 event to an event with probability less than 1. So, even though you may be right in this case and the next one thousand, there can be no "definites". :)