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 : Point and Figure Charting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: james ball who wrote (13672)	2/8/1999 11:48:00 AM
From: wlheatmoon	Respond to of 34809

Jeff Gordon certainly thinks so. :-) mike

To: james ball who wrote (13672)	2/8/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34809

<Ask Dale Earnhardt > better ask his son this year<g>..DD

To: james ball who wrote (13672)	2/8/1999 12:41:00 PM
From: Hardline	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34809

<You win the race by driving the straightest line. Ask Dale Earnhardt> Actually he drives in circles. Maybe Shirley Muldowney would be a better analogy. But we get the point. Don't drive on the infield or hit the wall. Stay on the track. Hardline

To: james ball who wrote (13672)	2/8/1999 6:16:00 PM
From: Hardline	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34809

Tom Question on Vertical Price Objective. I believe I see 2 variations in your VPO vs Burke's. 1. You use the first column of X's that create a buy signal. Burke used the first column of X's even if that column does not make a buy signal as long as a future column does without making a sell signal first. An example of this would be AOL in January '99. You would use 20, Burke would use 12. 2. The lowest point you use is the lowest X in the buy signal column. Where Burke uses the lowest O. Staying with the AOL example: You would use 138 as your starting point and Burke would use 130. The net/net is you would have a PO of 20x3x2 + 138 = 258 Bruke would have a PO of 12x3x2 + 130 = 202 Am I interpreting this correctly? And if so, is there a reason why you modified the formula? Thanks Hardline