|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Again will let the picture tell the story
(SP1021.gif).
Whilst weekly benifitting from the trade, (buying when the
SPX Sept, 13th and the {not shown on chart} Rising
Wedge fallout sells were both
triggered) am still holding onto the Nov00 Puts (strike
1500).
With the now double neckline Resistance @ 1417.28, and
enclosed by the Downtrend's falling wedge, then
a retest of Low 1305.79 is jet to be whitnessed (and
depending on downfall speed, most likely then is the right
time to part from trade).
Also:
-In the Chart am only 'accidently' catching 4 (!!) of List
Subjects of late into the one image
1. TA = Science*
: -The Working (unvolumed) DIAMONDs +
Diamond's H+S's patterns
2. TA = Science* :
-The Working (indicators) Buy+Sell signals
3. TA = Science* : -The
Working (scientificly provable) Fractal Retracements
4. TA = Science* : -The
Working (tactics) Charting, Pattern Reqocknising and Trend
Channeling
-Many of my several System's SELL + NEG signals are still
robustly valid
-RSI has confirmed a 2nd Lower LOW for the IMT
(it still is a 2nd Higher LOW for the Long
Term).
<FONT
size=2>----------------------------------------------------------------------
TA = Science* : For more evidential
science, see the below mails sent this year to the List
<FONT
size=2>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-S&P500 current + future TA outlook -
mails
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
07:38:30 Subject: Mother of all
Highs Date: Sat, 15
Jul 2000 17:34:35
Subject: S&P and contraire
Date: Sat, 21 Oct
2000 {this mail} Subject:
Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStocK
-NasdComp current + future TA outlook - mails
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000
17:36:15 Subject: Re: Mother of
all Highs
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000
12:43:12 Subject: Re: Nasdaq
charts/was Be Warned about Guru's Date:
Sat, 20 May 2000 23:56:34
Subject: Re: Mother of all Highs
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000
21:50:03 Subject: Re: Mother of
all Highs
-DowINDU current + future TA outlook -
mails
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000
02:39:04 Subject: RE: Being a
contrarian takes guts
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
00:20:59 Subject: Re:
Mother of all Highs Date: Sat, 15 Apr
2000 20:10:22 Subject: Re:
Support numbers
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000
01:49:20 Subject: Re: Mother of
all Highs
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000
01:03:16 Subject: Re: The
Dowdiamond, at last in full image
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000
00:27:35
Subject: Re: Potential huge DOWDiamond?!
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000
02:11:27 Subject:
Re: Potential huge DOWDiamond?!
Regards,Ton Maas<A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDismiss the
".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.Homepage <A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">Van:
A.J. Maas
Aan: <A title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 oktober 2000
2:10
Onderwerp: Re: Advanced Get versus
MetaStock
> No further comment from me is
necessary.
Yep, I would think so. Facts can be that hard. We
will see you NEXT month with the agreed upon results tho, won't
we?
> My best offense is to let you talk.
The facts that has silenced the bluff. And made
it hard to put the money where the mouth is. Me
unraffling
the myths in public also makes me the target man to
throw some mud at, but it will not ever force me to step aside
and let the parrots (the talking heads) create
them into make believes.
No offence, Joe, but unless someone can come up with
facts on the myth for it being a valid
evidential theory,
which by the way no-one was ever capable in doing so for the
past 15 years that I am trading, I will
consider,
particularly in the halve-traders stockmarkets, its use in
the financial markets (or as a TA-tool) in the same
category as the below mentioned
"monkey-throwing-darts" quicksand-category*, eg
thus accidential.
Cute, but in and for TA
basicaly irrelivant info.
*methods solidly lacking fundamental evidential
grounds, and thus not qualifiying for being ever TA-related +
considdered.
Regards,Ton Maas<A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDismiss
the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.Homepage <A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
Attachment:
Description: "SP1021.gif"
|