The week starts out 'interesting'. Gold is only a few cents from the 'magical' $1600 level. I think the only magical level is $10,000, and the musings on when that gets taken out. If it does, and the moves were proportional, that prices gas at the pump around $30/gal and crude around $400. Imagine food prices then. The Swissie is exploding, and the EUR/CHF just set another new record low, as parity is now the talk. And this has our futures down a whopping 1.75 points. Wow, pretty scary, the ES down 1.75 points.

Small 1-min GZ back at the key line that stopped the downflow. I just don't see them following through... It would make me too happy.

Many of the biggest analysts on The Street have now moved AAPL's price target up to the $525-$550 area, with one at $607. I'm surprised it isn't there already. Then they could raise their targets before the close today to say $800, like they used to do with QCOM during the dot.bomb bubble, and GOOG in more recent times. My price target on AAPL is $1,000, but that's a target for right now, in say a year, well, the sky's the limit.

Addendum: If I have to use the sarcasm on and off button on any more of these posts I am going to give up posting in here...

ES explodes off the KZ (slightly exceeded), GZ, and key line, as fully expected. Another 'perfect read'.

'W2' ABCD off this potential 'W2' ABCD? That would be interesting. But I don't see the downside... I can't see them letting it go. But, I'll see what it does, in case. Don't want to get off this if it is going to play out.

Okay, new low for the move, much to Jim's surprise. Now watch the 1.272 ext ret, and the ABCD down lower, to see which they respond to. I don't say if, like I should, because I fully expect them to gun this up.

Bouncing right off the 1.272 and .886 ABCD. If this does go lower, here are my levels:

19.00-.50

17.00-.50

I won't post any more lower levels because I think it is done going down already...

I sure wish I didn't have to explain my posts, but I feel if I don't, my points will be missed. I'm trying (hard) to get people to think like traders.

I am doing a theme here of pessimism and suspicion. The manipulators have engendered this for bears, on purpose, with these terrifying ramps. They try to do this on purpose, I feel. Then, as a bear, one gets afraid to short, and when short, quick to cover. It gets hard, and for good reason, to have any faith in sustained downside. In many cases this is well-founded, as they know where to move it down to suck in shorts, and where to drop it to, to do them the most damage, especially if they are persistent and stubborn.

It is good, I feel, under many circumstances, to give things rooms to breathe. It is also good, I feel, to know when you are being gamed. I am trying, real hard, to get people to think in here. Yes, one approach to trading is take the trade, set the target, move the stop to B/E, and let whatever happens happen. That is not my approach. If you want to learn from me, this is how I teach. Start thinking about my comments. Try to grasp the point I am making at any given time. Try to understand what I mean by thinking like a trader.

Woo-hoo. Another .447 KZ bounce and roll, and another nominal new low for the move.

Okay, they took the obvious 5-min TL out there. This is good. If one looked at this as a bullish ABCD here with a TD in the BC leg, that's been hit, so watch out for that excuse to bounce it. Otherwise, I mentioned my next areas.

This 20.50 area is a multiple line confluence. If this gives way, unless it is just a snap fake and ramp, it should give it the oooomph for some additional downside.

I guess what I am saying is that not every time price hits a line, or lines confluence and price hits them, it's an area that produces a potential trading edge. With experience one can make an attempt at filtering out these areas that just don't have the right look to them. I'm not really talking about subtle, almost invisible variations here, I'm talking about 'obviously has potential', and 'obviously looks totally wrong'. This is frequently something that can be seen by eye real easily, but is very, very hard to program into a computer. I wish I had a chart example off hand for you, but I don't.

Originally posted by tx_ches

Jim, what do you mean when you say "our eyes would say the geometry is not good." How can geometry be bad?

I'm not convinced the algo's are using the same median lines as roofer all the time. On the QQQ's, I drew 2 other sets before I saw roofer's set and even after I drew another set. So all together there were 4 sets with lines going into his areas. The algos could easily have programmed in 2 of them without using the more minor swing low that roofer used.

How heavily do you think the algos rely on measured moves? It seems like I see a lot of median line sets that capture a measured move. I wonder if that is what the algos key on when it is looking like they key on a median line set?