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.

And up off the lines and KZ it goes, like a rocket. Let's see if it sustains. Very, very predictable action so far on the run up, in my opinion.

at line again in kz....

Looks like they'll keep running it. Watching the next level, then.

.447 and .886 stopped it....amazing, really

AAPL on fire. 50 buy recommendations, 0 sells. Most targets 100 or more higher. That puts AAPL around 500...

Isn't it, though?

Originally posted by rat89

.447 and .886 stopped it....amazing, really

I guess everyone is buying into earnings in expectation of really good numbers tomorrow after the close.

Originally posted by jimkane

AAPL on fire. 50 buy recommendations, 0 sells. Most targets 100 or more higher. That puts AAPL around 500...

There's the new high for the move, as expected. Watching the next level.

Cash close. Now they can gun the futures up to the next area.

Interesting, though, since it took all day to get up here, my key line dropped below the next Fib grouping level (understand, though, we are talking ticks here), and it is coming right off the line to the tick. But, we'll see what it does from here. I'd think it would try to get higher regardless.

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?