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: ajtj99 who wrote (122460)	7/28/2005 11:10:09 PM
From: The Freep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

Eloquent, eh? I was gonna just write "invert this, baby" but I went for more depth. You know that all of us who post appreciate the work that others who post do. It's not something any of us HAVE to do, after all. <<However, the result is the same, so who really cares?>> Ultimately, all of us are trying to make money, it's true. But sometimes when people question you, you say things like, "well, don't you see the neckline of the inverse head and shoulders exerting influence? How can you deny they exist?" I know you're tired of getting crap, as you call it, but if there is no "real" neckline, based on the terminology you're using... well, it's akin to a scientist saying "don't you see, I've created cold fusion!!!! How can you deny it?" when in truth they've got some other cool reaction instead. It makes a difference when you're communicating with others, that's all. And since we're all trying to figure this thing out together, communication is kinda important. You have posted proof of the EOM Dow play, it's true. There have been other "master plans," though, such as the correlation of the USD to the SPX that you found gave you an incredibly detailed forward road map. When it was suggested that while that correlation had worked recently, there was tons of history showing that the correlation was not consistent through time, you implied that not following it was a major mistake. In that case, your TA wasn't a case of bad nomenclature, per se, but it was interpolating data in a way that didn't make sense to some of us... but our questioning was interpreted only as "crap." There might be some who view the IHS situation in a similar light -- tons of history saying you're dealing with some other formation/pattern/something. I dunno. I haven't given that part of it much thought, because where I'm in line with you right now is that the charts are bullish, and will be so until proven otherwise, nomenclature be damned. I see some different patterns than you, perhaps, but we're both long and looking for higher prices... and both focused on finding setups to play. As for symmetry not being understood or respected when applied to charts... well, as you know, you're not the first to play with symmetry even here on SI/Ihub. Many respect it. Many use it. Some, like me, don't think it's as precise as you do. To wit, you've been looking for 1634 (which I agree we'll hit), but your symmetry and patterns have "predicted" it a few times already. Sure, staying long has been right, but I just think there's more "wiggle room" in these things than you do. Anyway, as I said, all this was because I was trying to figure out why SBUX didn't fall into the same IHS metrics for you, since to me it looked the same. I see why you saw differences, though, ironically, the SBUX pattern looked clearer to me than most. Still no idea how it plays out, of course. Not sure it matters, either. The goal isn't to be right all the time... just enough! All in good intent and spirits, btw, which I hope you know.... the freep