gaps, page-3

Hey Mo, yep I get where you're coming from and it is something that will always puzzle you - sorry.

I remember back in the tech days, quite a number of explorers and telcos and a few others reinvented themselves as tech companies. It's interesting how a business can increase its market cap significantly just by changing sectors and not much else.

The best TA's imo are the ones that never completely trust it, but at the same time are also aware that freaky, for lack of a better word, shit does happen. If you look at TA as an instrument that somehow tries to determine intrinsic averages, then long term work such as that to me makes absolutely no sense. However when you look at it from the perspective of will a price point be relevant now that occured 10+ years ago, then it makes perfect sense. Although we view price as important, we view profit or loss as more important. A buyer that has held stock through a multitude of adjustments will lose the psychological to a specific price point, but won't as far as percentages of profit or loss.

Volume on long term charts of course is vital. Volume analysis is always important but in the circumstance you're asking about it becomes far more important, especially when you're talking about a massive volume situation resulting in long term trends.

And then yes we come back to the freaky shit. The chart that always amazes me is my AUD chart which I've posted on HC a couple of times. I can't explain how fibonacci techniques on pre fx data that's mostly in the hands of banks and few others, can have such accuracy on data 40 - 60 years later. I can't offer any explanation to that that would satisfy me or anyone else I suspect.

ww