terminal move confirmed

...because I said so.
http://www.traders-t...?...st&p=410055

Here's something to consider, if you happen to subscribe to the premise that the markets are efficient like this. Back in late December, the actual moving averages were bundled tightly together (the 100 was in there too, I just happen to think of it as the least important of the four and omitted it from mention). This time, it's their negative slope deviations that were bundled tightly together. Comparing apples to oranges, am I? Yes, but since when are bottoms anything like mirror-images of tops? So I like to investigate trace evidence of market-efficient operations, especially "corraling" of both moving averages and/or their resultant conditions. Corraling is what we had on December 28th and again on October 10th. One cut through and below, the other didn't. So after the failed attempt to efficiently break down below the October 10th bundle, there are two obvious choices here (making a setup for the major pivot point I mentioned). (1), Allow the slope deviations to decompress (as they now have) and attempt to divide and conquer each with successively lower prices, one at a time and into positive divergences on the shorter time frames (the lower strata at present). Or (2), respect the top of the 61.8% retracement strata at this point (per Friday's close). Either one is capable of causing a very swift directional move this week IMHO, and Friday has liely set this up for such an occurance right away. So whether you're a bear or bull, if you're thinking swift move, I can agree with you. Choice #1 seems about as possible as #2, but is a better recipe for a terminal attempt at the 2002 lows than an October 10th breakdown would have been. Should that transpire nevertheless, I would keenly watch for signs of (further?) accumulation in that zone.

Edited by spielchekr, 28 October 2008 - 08:52 PM.

Hey, I've been seeing some nice TA from you for a while now and I just wanted to mention it. Well done.

...because I said so.
http://www.traders-t...?...st&p=410055

Here's something to consider, if you happen to subscribe to the premise that the markets are efficient like this. Back in late December, the actual moving averages were bundled tightly together (the 100 was in there too, I just happen to think of it as the least important of the four and omitted it from mention). This time, it's their negative slope deviations that were bundled tightly together. Comparing apples to oranges, am I? Yes, but since when are bottoms anything like mirror-images of tops? So I like to investigate trace evidence of market-efficient operations, especially "corraling" of both moving averages and/or their resultant conditions. Corraling is what we had on December 28th and again on October 10th. One cut through and below, the other didn't. So after the failed attempt to efficiently break down below the October 10th bundle, there are two obvious choices here (making a setup for the major pivot point I mentioned). (1), Allow the slope deviations to decompress (as they now have) and attempt to divide and conquer each with successively lower prices, one at a time and into positive divergences on the shorter time frames (the lower strata at present). Or (2), respect the top of the 61.8% retracement strata at this point (per Friday's close). Either one is capable of causing a very swift directional move this week IMHO, and Friday has liely set this up for such an occurance right away. So whether you're a bear or bull, if you're thinking swift move, I can agree with you. Choice #1 seems about as possible as #2, but is a better recipe for a terminal attempt at the 2002 lows than an October 10th breakdown would have been. Should that transpire nevertheless, I would keenly watch for signs of (further?) accumulation in that zone.

Always respect and moe resading your amazing work. Thank you for sharing.

Can someone tell me what his point is? Direction? Bull/Bear? Or is it more of an Artsy thing?

Spielchekr, I agree that your work is great and that you don't get the recognition you deserve. Though I don't want to speak for someone else, I think what Cgnx was trying to say is that he see's value in your work but he has a problem understanding which direction you see things resolving. I know that you don't want to be seen as giving advice, but I think you would be safe in giving your opinion on where you think things might go from here. You could use wording that is very conservative. Like "In my opinion, this sucker is going turn up sharply sometime in the next couple of days and we could even see a 700 or 800 point one day rally in the Dow". Something subtle like this. Thanks for your great work. I think you are taking TA to a new level in that your work is approaching true science. UBW

He doesnt have to tell us anything. But am I the only one who has no clue what that chart says? I've been in the game for a long time and can read that either way. So I have no idea if spiel interprets correctly or not.

Hmm... someone needs the Cliff Notes version of the interpretation. Compression/bundling/corralling of 20/50/100/200 day momentum summations at the primary (1929-era scale) 61.8% retracement identified as a barrier. The challenge/opportunity to both bears and bulls to prove who can most efficiently use the barrier is presented. Bulls defend, bears fail at the price convergence point four all 4 moving summation 61.8% lines. Retest of price is shown to be at retest point of significantly decompressed summations, interpreted as a second and more inefficient attempt for breaking below the compressed summations. Said inefficient setup for bears is interpreted to produce a terminal attempt if the attempt is made. Huge move also interpreted to ensue as the outcome. Bear attempt enters the upper strata of decompressed price thresholds for 61.8% summations across the 20/50/100/200 spectrum. Failure called after the first and only 15 minute bar to enter and exist in the upper portion of the 61.8% strata zone. The outcome comes out. Sound about right to you?

Edited by spielchekr, 30 October 2008 - 06:18 AM.

LOL. UNCLE