snowbird

7 uncles from me my wife my son my daughter my granddaughter my dog and the possum in the backyard we bought because we don't have Geico (not sure whether he is dead or not, oh there he is! That's 7!)

Memphis ""Tell me are you a Christian child?" and I said "Ma'am I am tonight"

It's a turntable bridge!!!!!

A train-ship!

Siuya nailed it! I prefer the alternate answer (as it requires the thought process of swapping camels... and doesn't necessarily kill them off in the process!)

There were three men in the desert. Each had a camel. They all made a bet that whoever's camel could reach the finish line last was the bravest and most worthy man. For days the three men rode there camels as slow as possible and were beginning to run out of water and feel the effects of the hot sun. Luckily, they spotted an oasis and eventually reached it. at this oasis, the men regained there strength, and talked to a very respected wiseman. One telling the man about the problems they were facing (due the the bet) they jumped onto the camels and rode off as fast as they could. What advise did the wise man give these three men, without causing them to call off the bet????

agreed.... we all have biases... for instance, in regards to your original question on what would happen if the US lost it's reserve status, my personal bias is that such a loss would ultimately result in a shift in power as well... but that such shift would occur much slower than many estimate, because those in power will do anything within their power not to lose it! I would love to see a discussion about topics such as this, as these discussion expand my own horizons and can dispell personal biases I may have, but I would find it very hard to relate this to trading, as trading typically involves much shorter time-frames. I believe this may be a major factor in why such discussions peter out on these forums.

[quote name=Originally Posted by joshdance » Some of those who "crashed the world" are still in power, and some of those who tried to stop it are blamed.[/quote] I didn't watch the video either... but searches on both Brooksley E. Born and Raghuram Rajan will bring up good info on how they tried to warn of he impending risk prior to 2008 and were shunned by those in the establishment with more power.

So if I understand your explanation and matrix correctly. Today (Monday May 16th) was a BH HMF day on most of the US major indexes, with the high being made 1st in the session, followed by a penetration of Fridays low and then a decline the rest of the day. There actually could have been two potential trades today... long when price opened below yesterdays low (target yesterdays low (this is the rally portion of the larger overall decline for the session so one must be nimble)... and a second possible short trade after the high made in the morning session (this is the larger "decline" portion of the session with a larger potential profit as well?) Given this PA and Taylor theory (price never hit Taylor upper objectives for the day and closed weak), we would now be in at least a short term downtrend, and therefore would be biased for the same action tomorrow? Your insights are welcome if I have interpreted incorrectly. snowbird One other question

I assume by "D" and "R" sessions you are referring to declines and rally's". You discuss "columns" in reference as well, so I imagine you tracking these sessions on a daily basis, possibly in a spreadsheet, to gauge market strength, weakness and response within the cycle? Thanks, snowbird

Steve, Both setups show price accelerating out of a small base of "demand", which is determined by the way price left the base (many more buyers than sellers). It appears your strategy would be to wait for price to return to the top of the "base", as there are likely more buyers still at that level who either missed the first train when it rapidly left the station, or were just not able to get all of their original orders filled due to the limited number of sellers during the "basing" period. I would set a stop loss below the area you defined, and targets at the next visible supply level (unknown in the case of the first example). In the second (bond) example, possible targets around 122'10 and 122'16. I am curious about one thing in the levels/bases you have outlined.... why do you determine the lower level from the point of origin of the price rise, instead of the pivot point of the last low price made? snowbird

I hope to become the person my dog thinks I am! snowbird

Contributors like Kiwi are the only reason we frequent this particular forum. I sincerely hope to see the familiar coco"nuts" icon hear again soon! snowbird

My year end guess SPX: 1450 INDU: 13000 COMPX: 2975

really enjoyed following this one way to hang in there! snowbird