graftonian 1,089 posts msg #148350 - Ignore graftonian |
7/3/2019 9:56:31 AM
Mac, Thanks for the input. I went ahead and bought a Aug16 100 call for $148. Now to find the the next purchase.
I saw 2 young men in PFDs at the end of the street I live on, maybe they were headed to the Prosperity. I was busy with a group of volunteers clearing the flood damage from my basement, so I couldn't investigate further. I had 2 feet of water in the basement but the only real loss was the water heater. I'll go down to the end of the street and check the stop sign. They seem to be a casualty of commuting by Jon boat. Back in '08 I was living on a boat at the marina, and commuting to work by jon boat. I managed to hit the coke machine at the Grafton ferry landing.
Thanx again, Graf
|
volvlov 32 posts msg #148351 - Ignore volvlov modified |
7/3/2019 10:50:51 AM
Damn, damn, damn!!! I am on Chapter 3 and I made some alerts in TradingView last night based on phase 1 stock candidates crossing trend lines. I got an alert about KPTI this morning and now it's up like 30%. I wish I would have bought. This book is amazing!
|
Lapre506 48 posts msg #148353 - Ignore Lapre506 |
7/3/2019 12:48:55 PM
Scored a copy used on Amazon. Plan on reading it over the long holiday weekend
|
KSK8 561 posts msg #148356 - Ignore KSK8 |
7/3/2019 5:20:44 PM
The structure of the Wyckoff Cycle looks remarkably similar, perhaps components from it can be utilized for a confirmation.
Wyckoff

Stan

|
volvlov 32 posts msg #148366 - Ignore volvlov |
7/4/2019 1:22:16 AM
On page 108, he defined the relative strength as the ratio of the stock price to that of a market index, and then on page 109 he talked about how this ratio can be negative or positive. This can't be negative the way he defined it. What am I missing?
|
graftonian 1,089 posts msg #148371 - Ignore graftonian |
7/4/2019 11:38:44 AM
Volvlov, I believe this is a semantical issue. More accurately stated, the comment on pg109 should read "...the slope of the ratio can be negative or positive."
graf
|
xarlor 642 posts msg #148373 - Ignore xarlor modified |
7/4/2019 12:33:22 PM
"talked about how this ratio can be negative or positive. This can't be negative the way he defined it. What am I missing?"
I presume he means anything above 1.0 is positive (outperforming the comparing index) and below 1.0 is negative (underperforming the comparing index).
|
volvlov 32 posts msg #148378 - Ignore volvlov |
7/4/2019 7:58:02 PM
Thanks graft and xar! It appears that everything is here to make a Weinstein filter.
|
nibor100 1,103 posts msg #148387 - Ignore nibor100 |
7/5/2019 3:50:45 PM
I ordered a used copy of the book today to see what everyone is actually talking about.
Thanks,
Ed S.
|
Mactheriverrat 3,178 posts msg #148392 - Ignore Mactheriverrat |
7/5/2019 10:37:04 PM
@nibor100
I think you will like it.
|