ES Journal - 2019/2020

[vanzandt]

Donald? Is that you, Mr. President?

Maga!

 

[NQurious]

You cannot prove a definition. You can't simply redefine a term differently from the way the entire rest of the world defines the term and say, "therefore and thus!"

 

[vanzandt]

Well, I guess if one looks at a chart of the S&P for the last 25 years.... claiming "the trend remains up" is a pretty safe statement.
Let me ask however b1.... if we take out 2700, 2650, 2600, 2550 ....does the trend still "remain up" in your eyes? Don't get me wrong... I mean no disrespect here... but again I go back to timeframes. Without those the constant mantra of "the trend remains up" is remarkably akin to something from the Wizard of Oz himself.

....and?

 

[mm2mm]

Today ?

March ?

2020?

February 2019 haha

 

[NQurious]

short 37, stop 41, target 29

 

[volente_00]

Low was 48 so 53 to 48 was charted yesterday. Gap begins at yesterday's low. I've already proven this and it is not open to debate at this time.

Proven what ? A gap is caused by an open above or below the previous session closing price.

 

[volente_00]

Maga!

Make

A

Gapfill

Attempt

 

[volente_00]

short 37, stop 41, target 29

No shorts for me until we gap fill

Especially with DEMTDAYBOYZ

 

[Buy1Sell2]

You cannot prove a definition. You can't simply redefine a term differently from the way the entire rest of the world defines the term and say, "therefore and thus!"

I've proven it by tradings. Also here is a quick example----by Volente's definition, there was a gap from 2582 to 2585 on Jan 15. It can't be seen easily, because the wrong definition is being used. You will see though that there is no gap by my definition which is the correct one. When you use the incorrect definition by Vol and Peks, you would be keeping track of bogus and meaningless gaps all across the charts. ---Gaps must be able to seen readily and easily to the naked eye.

 

[vanzandt]