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: Doo who wrote (61655)	12/14/2002 9:47:40 AM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

Jeffry White: The only thing that really matters, in my mind, is that it's done consistently, thereby producing something objective. Well I have to agree with most of that statement. However, consistently is not the only thing that matters, but it a good first start. but I also agree with the concern over moving into the apex of the triangle on those charts, as AA notes. Here are a few lines from one of "augieboo’s" post on the IHub MDA Thread with regards to the XAU and HUI discussion. ...As to the distance to the apex issue. The only "authority" I know of who has ever actually quantified his findings is Bulkowski, Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns. Bulkowski studied 162 triangles which followed an up- trend and broke upward. Of those 162, 20% broke out between the 75 and 80% marks, another 20% between the 80 and 85% marks, 14% between the 85 and 90% marks, and 10% broke out past the 90% marks. Thus, 64% of them broke out at least 75% of the way from the beginning of the formation to the apex. Overall, the average formation broke out 78% of the distance to the apex... Since I have not read the book I cannot personally comment on the book. Regards, LG

To: Doo who wrote (61655)	12/14/2002 10:23:48 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

I often wonder whether it makes sense to be very formalistic about chart structures. The patterns were not ‘invented’, they were ‘discovered’. They reflect the way human beings (in conglomerate) feel and think – and, most importantly, act – while trading or investing. I can’t see how it makes sense to expect the ‘drawings’ to be perfect. Patterns seem to be interrelated. A flat – in a way – is a zigzag with less oomph. A triangle is a range which is being “played” – buyers or sellers come in before the latest bottom or top are reached again. A triangle is indecisive. While it tends to be a continuation pattern, its very indecisiveness implies that the move is weakening. A wedge (ED) is an impulse with overlaps. In a wedge there is a lot of energy, but with inherent accumulating uncertainty. It often ends up creating an overshoot, which is basically a pseudo breakout, a final episode of panic buying (or selling), with people getting trapped on the wrong side. I could go on… Some of what I said here is just classic stuff, other things are a bit idiosyncratic, but the idea is simple – IMO, if one “gets” what’s on Mr. Market’s mind, that’s the key. Geometric perfection is nice, it allows for prettier pictures – and yes, maybe even increases somewhat the odds – but is still secondary.