juggernaut: â1226 was a major S/R line and that's very well why it bounced off there at 11:00â
My comment was intended to address your original assertion that 1226 specifically was a âlineâ or âpointâ of support and not an âareaâ as youâve revised in your recent post.
âthe 1226 area was a major S/R area.â
As I stated, the âareaâ offered substantial support, IMHO, up to about 10 points below the low at that time of 1221 (9:29-9:31 CST).
âIt bounced off this line 3 times before finally punching throughâ¦â
Again, the general idea has merit but the fact is that the market did not bounce off of the 1226 âlineâ three times. It stopped at 1226, 1229.5, and 1236. I donât mention this to nitpick but instead to illustrate the reason why, in my trading, I have found it more profitable to define âareasâ or âzonesâ of S/R and not expect exact lines to often be observed.
Therefore, I disagree with the assertion that the strong thrust upward at 10:01 CST was the consequence of price striking the 1226 âlineâ. I believe it is somewhat coincidental that we bounced form 1225 at that moment. In my mind, the news that was revealed to be bogus seconds after 10:01 was the spark. Whether we even would have originally had the opportunity to be driven down from the 1245-1236 area (9:16) through the 1226 âlineâ to 1221 (9:29-9:31) and then subsequently pop up from that area without the news is something weâll never know.
If you feel that this discussion has dissolved into a case of semantics then I apologize. I was referencing your statement because I agreed with the general idea of your post, but not the specificity. Rereading my original post above, I see that the use of quotations to indicate your words (i.e. major) is obfuscating my intended emphasis. My bad. Iâll be more aware of how I structure my posts in the future.
