aka...
http://stockcharts.com/c-sc/sc?s=$NYA&p=D&yr=0&mn=4&dy=20&i=p22182166447&a=104666396&r=5481.png
dirigible prophecy
Started by
spielchekr
, Oct 16 2007 04:34 PM
12 replies to this topic
#3
nicolasillo
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 1,441 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:03 PM
hindenburg omen did not give a signal today if this is what you r trying to say
#4
spielchekr
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 3,104 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:32 PM
What's missing? http://www.safehaven...cle.cfm?id=3880
hindenburg omen did not give a signal today if this is what you r trying to say
#5
nicolasillo
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 1,441 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:37 PM
hindenburg omen did not give a signal today if this is what you r trying to say
sorry for rushing on this one...but what time does the wall street journal stops changing the numbers?
It may give a signal at the end....let s see
#6
spielchekr
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 3,104 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:46 PM
yeah, it's in review now, but they haven't rescinded the call just yet. http://online.wsj.co...c_topnav_2_3022
hindenburg omen did not give a signal today if this is what you r trying to say
sorry for rushing on this one...but what time does the wall street journal stops changing the numbers?
It may give a signal at the end....let s see
#7
nicolasillo
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 1,441 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:53 PM
What's missing? http://www.safehaven...cle.cfm?id=3880
everything is there for the signal BUT New HIGHS & LOWS both need to be >79
That s what missing at least at the moment.
#8
spielchekr
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 3,104 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 06:05 PM
everything is there for the signal BUT New HIGHS & LOWS both need to be >79
That s what missing at least at the moment.
I've seen that condition on Wikipedia. Is that McHugh's condition, or just a redundancy of the .022% threshold to assist in mentally calculating from some fixed number of total issues? Total issues vary.
#9
nicolasillo
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 1,441 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 06:10 PM
I've seen that condition on Wikipedia. Is that McHugh's condition, or just a redundancy of the .022% threshold to assist in mentally calculating from some fixed number of total issues? Total issues vary.
I ve read the article you posted and it doesn t have it. Yes on wikipedia has that condition but does nt say the reference. I like to be on the safe side so i use that condition too.
#10
spielchekr
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 3,104 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2007 - 09:38 PM
Final tally. I trust WSJ's numbers more than Stockcharts.
I'll leave the chart marked as is, fwiw.
total issues~ 3380 (918+2362+100)
new highs~ +2.22%
new lows~ +2.40%
I'll leave the chart marked as is, fwiw.
total issues~ 3380 (918+2362+100)
new highs~ +2.22%
new lows~ +2.40%
