Back to www.cobrasmarketview.com |
Hi Uempel, what are you expecting in the short term? This week and the next? I think you said earlier that the ellipses are forecasting a big move this coming week? Thanks.uempel wrote:Looking at recent SPX action makes sense if we draw channels:
On a longer term I see bullish:
- a break up and back into the blue channel at 1975/85 is bullish until 2050/75
- a break out of the red channel to the upside above 2050/75 is very bullish
and bearish:
- a break south below the black channel (now at 1825) is bearish
- a break south below the red channel (below 1800) is very bearish
Summary:
- 2050 is key for a strong bullish move
- 1800 is key for a strong bearish move
nikman wrote:Hi Uempel, what are you expecting in the short term? This week and the next? I think you said earlier that the ellipses are forecasting a big move this coming week? Thanks.uempel wrote:Looking at recent SPX action makes sense if we draw channels:
On a longer term I see bullish:
- a break up and back into the blue channel at 1975/85 is bullish until 2050/75
- a break out of the red channel to the upside above 2050/75 is very bullish
and bearish:
- a break south below the black channel (now at 1825) is bearish
- a break south below the red channel (below 1800) is very bearish
Summary:
- 2050 is key for a strong bullish move
- 1800 is key for a strong bearish move
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
uempel wrote:nikman, now I've found it. It's a weekly chart with a very suspicious/obnoxious time signal for next week. My only concern: did I draw it precisely, is it not referring to January 20th
Its easiest to see what happens by doing a spatial representation.uempel wrote:Found this riddle in David Tang's column in the FT a few weeks ago. The conundrum (which in my view is not a conundrum) shows that what we read or what we see confuses our logical thinking. We only find solutions if we push aside any preconceived (or printed) ideas and use our brain to analyse/solve a problem.
I think it is somewhat simpler than that. The puzzle is worded to fool you into thinking the $2 the waiter took is mathmatically added, when in fact it is subtracted, and there is no unaccounted for $1.DellGriffith wrote:Simple version:uempel wrote:Found this riddle in David Tang's column in the FT a few weeks ago. The conundrum (which in my view is not a conundrum) shows that what we read or what we see confuses our logical thinking. We only find solutions if we push aside any preconceived (or printed) ideas and use our brain to analyse/solve a problem.
So the flaw is the bad assertion in the problem. The bad assertion in the problem is that everyone paid $9 just for the meal and that there was $2 left over for a tip. (the $3 returned was not mentioned). That is wrong. The truth is that one man paid $9 for the meal only, while the other two men paid $8 for the meal and paid a $1 tip, with $3 returned.
daytradingES wrote:Shanghai down 1.5%