42 replies to this topic

[U.F.O.]

As far as "collapse" goes, using your "definition"...Rome did not collapse in a day.

My definition? I merely put the word collapse in a chart and YOU drew a face on it. What does Rome collapsing in a day have to do with the price of bread? According to your opinion the capital markets and the economy are in the "process" of a collapse. Is that an unfair characterization of your opinion?

U.F.O.

[SemiBizz]

Alright just to finish this off now let's look at the QQQQ daily, I have an algorithm I use that tells me roughly what volume to expect on a daily basis, based on 30 min. It was obvious on 10th that we would not beat the previous day's volume and that we were in an upthrust, that also contributed to my decision to short as well as the input from the 65 min.

http://bigcharts.mar...&mocktick=1.gif

[milbank]

As far as "collapse" goes, using your "definition"...Rome did not collapse in a day.

My definition? I merely put the word collapse in a chart and YOU drew a face on it. What does Rome collapsing in a day have to do with the price of bread? According to your opinion the capital markets and the economy are in the "process" of a collapse. Is that an unfair characterization of your opinion?

U.F.O.

No. It's not an unfair characterization of my opinion. It's exactly what I said only it's actually a fact.

By the way, don't forget this on your way out, you dropped it a couple of posts ago...

The word "collapse" should be reserved for situations where it "definitely" applies. Like maybe the Roman Empire.

Edited by milbank, 12 April 2008 - 06:48 PM.

[atlasshrugged]

Alright just to finish this off now let's look at the QQQQ daily, I have an algorithm I use that tells me roughly what volume to expect on a daily basis, based on 30 min. It was obvious on 10th that we would not beat the previous day's volume and that we were in an upthrust, that also contributed to my decision to short as well as the input from the 65 min.

http://bigcharts.mar...&mocktick=1.gif

SEMI the volume on the COMP was high on april 1Oth

are you trading the q's or the comp???

the volume on the COMP on March 20th and april 10th precluded the gap up the following day.....( was busted by ge on april 11th)



your speaking in tongues....

the mkt was poised to gap up on Friday...on the COMP

earlier you showed my a chart of the comp with volume to postition your argument now you show me volume on the qqqq's to base your argument?





O

Edited by iron cross, 12 April 2008 - 06:50 PM.

[thespookyone]

As I posted on Denleo's thread Thursday-trin and internals did not show a favorable situation going into Friday. My technical work told me to go short , as apparantly Denleo's told him-and I went short qqqq Thursday(via puts). Covered Fridays close. As for "low prob" on the GE earnings-the option strike levels indicated the stock was going down after earnings-to 35 as a minimum.

Edited by thespookyone, 12 April 2008 - 06:52 PM.

[SemiBizz]

I dealt with Nasdaq daily in post #6...

Here:

http://www.traders-t...?...st&p=365870

You had a price rejection of the 4/1 rally. The entire move up from there was on progressively lighter volume and died on 4/7, the following day, 4/8, you had a light volume gap down doji marking the 1/2 way point of a move down, first sign of weakness followed by a progressively higher volume day on 4/9. 4/9 ended on a very symmetrical low, almost equidistant from the doji line to the high. On 4/10 we get over the 4/1 high, just barely and just barely under the volume of 4/1 for a distributed top

[atlasshrugged]

As I posted on Denleo's thread Thursday-trin and internals did not show a favorable situation going into Friday. My technical work told me to go short , as apparantly Denleo's told him-and I went short qqqq Thursday(via puts). Covered Fridays close.

thats is such BS the trin and internals on the mclellan were the same as the march 20th trading day and the march 31st trading day

show me how they were different!!!

[SemiBizz]

And you will also notice that the QQQQ was in a bearish upthrust relative to 4/1. The way it gave it up was even more dramatic. So, I guess it all boils down to your indicators. Mine worked fine, I got short - I made money. The risks were well-defined I could have lost 20cts had QQQQ been able to turn up on volume and break the high on 4/10.

Edited by SemiBizz, 12 April 2008 - 06:59 PM.

[U.F.O.]

By the way, don't forget this on your way out, you dropped it a couple of posts ago...
QUOTE
"The word "collapse" should be reserved for situations where it "definitely" applies. Like maybe the Roman Empire"

??? I don't get it milbank. I really don't want to get in a pi$$ing match with you. My chart the other night that was annotated with the "collapse" word offended you in some way and I think I know why...because you REALLY believe the economic system is collapsing and I was poking fun/disdain at that belief. Get over it. My chart had nothing to do with you and there's no reason you should take what I originally posted personally. You can believe and trade on whatever you want. I just happen to think you're wrong. Two different opinions...that's what makes markets...Best.

U.F.O.

[milbank]

By the way, don't forget this on your way out, you dropped it a couple of posts ago...
QUOTE
"The word "collapse" should be reserved for situations where it "definitely" applies. Like maybe the Roman Empire"

??? I don't get it milbank. I really don't want to get in a pi$$ing match with you. My chart the other night that was annotated with the "collapse" word offended you in some way and I think I know why...because you REALLY believe the economic system is collapsing and I was poking fun/disdain at that belief. Get over it. My chart had nothing to do with you and there's no reason you should take what I originally posted personally. You can believe and trade on whatever you want. I just happen to think you're wrong. Two different opinions...that's what makes markets...Best.

U.F.O.

I did not respond to the chart in your post the night before last, I responded to the what you said. I did not take your original post personally. I did take your "fun/distain" mocking of mine personally. I posted nothing to exact such disrespect. Nonetheless, I rose above it, ignored it and stuck to the facts. daesin addressed you about that.
If you can't take it, don't start it. Some days I have more tolerance than others.

Edited by milbank, 12 April 2008 - 07:13 PM.