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 : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (32199)	3/13/2003 10:20:55 AM
From: PuddleGlum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

By 'negated' I think you mean 'failed'? Yes, Oct 10-12 of 2000 had a very believable buy signal, but there was no sell signal until 1/31/01 (there were more buy signals earlier in Jan that would have been good). There were a bunch of sell signals between 6/7/99 and 7/8/99, and you would have lost money by listening to the first 4 of them. The sell signal in early Nov. 1998 had modifiers that made it very low confidence, but the sell signal on 12/13/98 seems very believable. A sell signal on 1/18/00 had a low confidence modifier, so could have been ignored. I've been planning to create some GIF files of my charts and send them your direction, and I will do so this weekend. Also, strictly speaking, yesterday's signal was like cocking a gun, giving the interpreter the opportunity to pull the trigger when he/she pleases. Usually one is well off by acting on the very next trading day, but I also had a buy signal on 9/10/01. Buying at the open on 9/17 would have put you underwater for a month. But buying on 9/20, the day after the trigger was pulled for you, would have been better. There are a few other similar cases.