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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (1523)	12/12/1998 4:24:00 PM
From: dj8000	Respond to of 99985

LG: the timing of creation of this thread was very good( just before market pull back) and the discussions was/will be useful. DJ

To: HairBall who wrote (1523)	12/12/1998 4:45:00 PM
From: Michael Davis	Respond to of 99985

I also found the "troubling" post to smack of an attitude of "prove to me your thread is worth my time to read." I was laughing at your response as you started out being polite and then realized why should you have to defend the thread or your "success rate" at all. I didn't see any request for money to read the thread and I have found it extremely enlightening and helpful.

To: HairBall who wrote (1523)	12/12/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: dj8000	Respond to of 99985

from TA point of view, short term, the market seemed weak in a sense many statistics are almost the same as oct. low: iqc.com for example: RSI: 48.27, OCT: about the same stochastics: about the same as Oct from graph. MACD histogram: across zero. OTC: a bit lower at that time. But this means DOW already has the correct pull back and won't have much room to go down from here. (IMO) but for NASDAQ, all indicators above are WAY above their Oct. high which means trouble. iqc.com DJ

To: HairBall who wrote (1523)	12/12/1998 5:19:00 PM
From: SE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

LG and All: I have done some work on the MACD divergences and have noted an interesting observation on time frames. It does appear that, for the most part, the time it take for a divergence to be set up is the time it takes for the divergence to reach its destination, not always, but more often than not. For example, the biggie MACD divergence off of the lows occurred from 9/1 to 10/8....28 days. Then the high was, in essence, established on 11/23. Yes we went a touch higher than that, but that was essentially it. That was 32 days...pretty close. You can do this on any time frame. Doesn't matter. Sometimes it is off a bit, but it gives you a time frame of reference for when the move should be completed. The shorter the time frame, ie, one minute charts, the more it seems to be off in eithe direction. If this traslates over this weekend from last week, the first two and one half to three hours on Monday should be sideways to up and carry us back over 1180 SPH and if it does so, a bearish divergence will most likely be set up that will take us lower over the next three hours. So up to 11 am cst, then down to the bond close for Monday. If this theory holds up the overwhelming trend on the 60 minute chart will be down for another six days and on the 120 minute charts for the next 5 1/2 weeks. Of course it will be up and down and I don't see anything that indicates straight down, so it should be a good trader's market. The bearish divergences we have from the top are not as clear or as strong it appears as the bullish divergence set-up at the GZ spot in October! (inside joke to Ground Zero) I am in process of printing out the complete ES8Z charts on several time frames to look at this in more detail, but my quick perusal of several charts and time frames appear to bear this out. The complete action on Monday.....Andrew's Pitchfork should hold the advance at 1170, and 1174 basis SPX. Then I suggest a move lower. Ultimate targets SPX will be initially, 1165, then 1158 and the key of 56/57 if broken yields 1148. Good Luck to all. -Scott

To: HairBall who wrote (1523)	12/12/1998 7:11:00 PM
From: DayTraderKidd	Respond to of 99985

I read your posts and your thread all of the time. You started a great thread. I personally don't think you did anything wrong and I really don't care either way. I think the simple fact that these few other people seek some fort of a confession from you in and of itself suggests to me that they can desire to be disruptive although I really don't care about that either and I don't understand why you do. Lets all just drop our ego's here and keep this thread going. What is so hard to understand about that??? Let us not forget why we are really here. We try to determine to the best of our ability the drection of the market based on many different FA and TA criteria thus allowing us to slip in and out of stocks. That is why we are really here. Why do any of you feel this need to control other events that have no significance to this thread and could not in any way or form lead to anything good. Take a look at the good things around you, appreciate them (ie...the freedom to trade in this market) and releive youselves of all of this other nonsense from your lives.

To: HairBall who wrote (1523)	12/13/1998 2:11:00 AM
From: James F. Hopkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

LG : techstocks.com I'm not so happy when Bill on the BK thread and myself both see the same thing, normally we balance one another, but right now it looks as if we both see warning signs. Well I saw some since Nov 23, then mixed, but now more warnings seem to be showing up, Friday it was KO, last Week BA, and note MRK broke over to, as well as BRKA headed south, the internuts don't have enough market cap to support much more down side to the blue chips. Jim