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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (61653)	12/14/2002 7:36:03 AM
From: AllansAlias	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

First of all, let me say that I am wrong about as often as anyone else. One gets used to it. Being wrong is not expensive, it's the being stubborn that hurts. However, I do not believe I was wrong in these cases. The HUI breakout is not the result of a triangle imo. As I said "Gold may well move up from here, but not based on any triangle". As a couple of people here who frequent another board can attest, I recommended buying the break in gold from the low in late November. This analysis was not based on any triangle. And this comment "A rising wedge has to be born out of a reactionary low, not the high of a previous leg." is wrong as well. Here I think you just misunderstand what I am saying. I only mean that it begins, i.e., is born, at the reactionary low after the high of the previous move. In other words, the high of the previous move is not part of it.

To: HairBall who wrote (61653)	12/14/2002 8:11:04 AM
From: Doo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

Have to chime in here...can't stand it any longer. :) I agree with LG's definitions, agree with using the pivot high on the XAU, HUI charts for a triangle, but I also agree with the concern over moving into the apex of the triangle on those charts, as AA notes. There are differing methods to drawing these things, no doubt, different requirements for the number of reversals, plenty of variety in how strictly to draw the touches, and on and on. The only thing that really matters, in my mind, is that it's done consistently, thereby producing something objective. How the definitions and criteria AA is using work in that regard, I don't know, but as long as they produce something consistent and objective, who's to say it's 'wrong'....and vice/versa?