Policy Strikes Back Against Capital's Provocation
2007/9/19 15:42:03
Whether today counts as a Tian Liang-style dive or not, we'll probably need to see the next couple of days to know. Because it seems like Tian Liang's events include both the 1-meter springboard and the 10-meter platform—you need to compare them to tell. Originally, with the US rate cut, the whole world took a swig of Shuijingfang, but China is China—we don't play with the rest of the world, we play our own game.
The judgment on the year-end market was made very clear in "Analysis of Late 2007 Market Trends Under the Capital-Policy Game"—what the most rational trend would look like was also written very clearly. If one side provokes, they will surely be struck back. Today the three major newspapers made everyone study, so everyone studied for a bit. Shuijingfang was taken by the Brits to sell worldwide in pounds—we'll just drink Wang Lao Ji to cool down.
Technically, yesterday's analysis was as clear as it could be. The basic view remains the same. First, the small 1-minute oscillation—today's shake didn't produce any result. Operationally, of course you sell on rallies during oscillations. After selling, wait and watch—if a downward break produces a third-type sell point, we just ignore it and watch whether it crashes into Wang Lao Ji or Shuijingfang before deciding. If no third-type sell point appears, we continue playing the game with it.
However, from the perspective of short-term policy pressure, if the capital side continues running a Sichuan hotpot with blazing fire, then policy-wise it probably won't be just a simple study session. Making you drink Wang Lao Ji was giving you face—someday making you eat some croton seeds or drink some slimming tea, what's so impossible about that?
This ID always wants to smooth things over, letting both sides calm down a bit, but good intentions absolutely cannot be realized by this ID alone—the market belongs to everyone, it's the result of combined forces. Of course, this ID can't be bothered to make appeals anymore. Right now there's only one thought: hurry up and let the holiday come so I can go traveling.
Yesterday, this ID's poem "Upon Hearing Typhoons May Close Markets, A Seven-Line Verse on 'Wind Disaster'" may have triggered certain sensitivities. This ID later changed "Delighted to hear" to "Suddenly hearing"—that's smoothing things over. This ID doesn't want to insist on a single word—there's nothing to insist on. Although what the original phrasing modified was very clear, if a single word can reduce everyone's arguing, what does a word count for? So the current impasse between capital and policy is the same—does capital really need to seize every moment to make so-called money? Take a step back, and can't the sea be wide and the sky be vast?
It's just that once the US cuts rates, certain calculations become hard to make. This ID personally never has any worries—the only worry right now is seeing too clearly.
Yesterday was September 18th. Let us make up for the three minutes of silence.
Today I can answer questions until 4:30, but please first observe three minutes of silence for September 18th.
Note
The afternoon technical analysis supplement is in tonight's post.
Replies
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 15:54:14
[Anonymous] Sina Netizen Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 15:50:40
000807, that donkey, will it go crazy again?
==
Right now, the company doesn't want to, but someone bigger than the company wants to, and they're grinding away at it. It'll only go crazy once the grinding produces a result. The stock's fundamentals are solid, and there are new projects that will generate profits. However, if the broader market turns bad, it can only follow the market down for a stretch. If there's a chance for a major mid-term buy point, it's worth watching.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 15:59:39
Entangle Me Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 15:53:58
Sister, are you bullish on electric power and steel? Have bank stocks finished their correction?
Hope to hear your music concert reopen soon ^_^
==
That website won't reopen, so this ID can't do anything about it. Both sectors are fine. Steel has risen a lot recently, so the pressure is greater.
Actually, this ID often tries to say a few things, but some things can't be said explicitly or it would look like market guidance. For example, 600569—the day before yesterday when it closed high, I said the original script's target had been reached. Of course, that was just this ID talking in my sleep—this ID actually said nothing at all, just like with 000802 last time.
However, these stocks, after adjusting, all have no major issues. The key right now isn't individual stocks, it's the broader market.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:01:21
[Anonymous] Sina Netizen Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 15:58:33
May I ask, during meditation does the qi come out continuously from the qi mouth? Currently it feels affected by breathing. I'm aware of the breathing.
==
Just briefly contemplate that true qi is formless—why would you concern yourself with the breath of respiration?
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:04:54
Heng Ling Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 15:59:46
Master Chan, yesterday you revised the definition of stroke again. Should we draw line segments using the new definition or the old one going forward?
==
That was mainly so different software platforms can reduce discrepancies, because the number of K-lines is definitely basically the same this way. This prevents minor differences from leading to different results. Plus it's simpler to distinguish, so you can use the new standard. Everything else stays the same.
This ID has always used the old standard, because this ID only uses one set of software. But once this theory is made public, there's an adaptability issue—after all, you can't require everyone to use only one set of software. So making a small tweak that doesn't affect the final judgment, why not?
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:09:12
[Anonymous] Sina Netizen Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:04:18
Good afternoon, Master Chan!
I'd like to ask: how do you explain Sinopec bucking the trend and rallying to support the market today?
==
Why does rallying necessarily mean supporting the market? If it rallied and the market still ended up like this, what would've happened without the rally? Think about how PetroChina performed during the May 30th crash. Of course, there's another reason—as mentioned above, why must it keep playing Lei Feng?
From a mid-term view, PetroChina itself has no issues, with plenty of fundamental support.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:14:02
[Anonymous] 菜鸟 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:01:15
Sister Chan, 000807, I already saw your reply to other classmates! Got the spirit!
Can you also look at Unisplendour for me? Can I keep holding? Thanks!
==
This is a classic beginner's mistake—why only ask about holding after it drops? The sell point above was so obvious, with both consolidation divergence and a top fractal—why not exit first?
Stock trading has rhythm. If the rhythm is off, this ID doesn't know what to do either.
This ID only knows how to dance with the market's rhythm. As long as you follow the market's rhythm, you can glide gracefully even on a knife's edge.
Also, please clarify why you bought in the first place. If it was a mid-term purchase, then it should have been entered at a mid-term buy point.
This stock is definitely fine for mid-to-long term. The extent of short-term adjustment naturally correlates with the broader market.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:16:39
[Anonymous] 落到实处 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:07:35
Sister, I also got into 600078.
Are you still in it? If you're not, I'll leave immediately.
==
Didn't I explicitly say the other day that this ID went to the provincial office and couldn't find anyone processing a mining permit? The next morning there was plenty of time at high levels—if it was a short-term trade, why not exit first?
This stock—this ID will continue watching it. At the next buy point, this ID will naturally get in, because this ID has a bit of curiosity and wants to see what these scoundrels are up to.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:18:14
[Anonymous] 清茶依依 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:15:48
If there aren't three K-lines between a "top fractal and bottom fractal," and there's a gap between K-lines, does this top fractal and bottom fractal still count?
==
No. A gap doesn't prove anything—what's needed is sustained duration.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:20:39
[Anonymous] 袖手旁观 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:17:15
|......................................................
|...................................................9/.
|.................................................../..
|................................5................./...
|.............................../\.....7........../....
|............................../..\..../\......../.....
|.........1.................../....\../..\....../......
|......../\.......3........../......\/....\..../.......
|......./..\....../\......../.......6......\../........
|....../....\..../..\....../................\/.........
|...../......\../....\..../.................8..........
|..../........\/......\../.............................
|.../..........2.......\/..............................
|../....................4.......... ...................
|./....................................................
|.0... ................................................
|......................................................
May I ask, in this diagram, 5-6 constitutes stroke destruction against 0~5, but there's also a gap between 5-6 and 3-4. Should this be treated as the second case? If we examine the entire sequence of 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, can it be viewed as having no gap?
==
First, you need to select the pending-destruction vertex of the original line segment. Here it's obviously 1—since 3 isn't higher than 1, it clearly doesn't constitute a pending-destruction vertex. Thus, 5 going down destroys 1, then extends into a line segment—that's the standard first case, and has nothing to do with 3.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:24:06
[Anonymous] Sina Netizen Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:08:56
Why was 0021 pumped today? 13-year record volume.
==
Something's going on. Can't say—afraid it might cause influence and also violates certain regulations. You'll find out in a while.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:26:00
[Anonymous] 笑天 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:00:27
Master Chan, if there's only one K-line between a top fractal and a bottom fractal, do we not need to consider the K-line's direction? So this "top + directionless K-line + bottom" can independently constitute a stroke, right?
==
That doesn't matter—as long as it's independent, it's fine. Yesterday I described an even simpler, more universally applicable method that won't produce different results even if data differs slightly between software platforms. Please check last night's post.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:28:03
[Anonymous] 阿进 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 15:53:10
Sister, could you dedicate a lesson to teaching everyone about warrants?
There are lots of people here playing warrants too.
Warrants are characterized by fast movements and sensitive reactions—the buy/sell points in Chan Theory flash by almost instantly.
Of course, with your level of capital, you can't get into those small-cap instruments.
But warrants' T+0 and low transaction costs are truly paradise for us small-capital traders.
I took a big fall on them and still have lingering trauma.
Can you talk about it?
==
Operate at a larger level. And if your technique and mentality aren't good, it's best not to participate—you can't even handle stocks properly, why mess with warrants?
Many people can't even properly trade on the 30-minute chart, yet they try to trade line segments—how can that possibly work?
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:29:47
[Anonymous] Sina Netizen Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:00:02
Master Chan, may I ask how to operate S-shares currently? Like 000999, 600688—they seem unrelated to the broader market, going their own way.
==
If you have no technique, just hold them dead until trading halt. If you do, use part of your position for short-term swings to lower cost and increase your share count.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:34:26
[Anonymous] 赚到了 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:27:34
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán
Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:20:39
[Anonymous] 袖手旁观 Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 16:17:15
|......................................................
|...................................................9/.
|.................................................../..
|................................5................./...
|.............................../\.....7........../....
|............................../..\..../\......../.....
|.........1.................../....\../..\....../......
|......../\.......3........../......\/....\..../.......
|......./..\....../\......../.......6......\../........
|....../....\..../..\....../................\/.........
|...../......\../....\..../.................8..........
|..../........\/......\../.............................
|.../..........2.......\/..............................
|../....................4.......... ...................
|./....................................................
|.0... ................................................
|......................................................
May I ask, in this diagram, 5-6 constitutes stroke destruction against 0~5, but there's also a gap between 5-6 and 3-4. Should this be treated as the second case? If we examine the entire sequence of 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, can it be viewed as having no gap?
==
First, you need to select the pending-destruction vertex of the original line segment. Here it's obviously 1—since 3 isn't higher than 1, it clearly doesn't constitute a pending-destruction vertex. Thus, 5 going down destroys 1, then extends into a line segment—that's the standard first case, and has nothing to do with 3.
============
Chan MM, I replied to this in the previous post and made the following supplement to your definition. Do you think it works?
I agree that "the distinction between the two cases is based on whether the first stroke constitutes stroke destruction"—this should also be Chan MM's original intent. The problem is that this statement is hard to reflect in the characteristic sequence, so Chan MM used gaps to describe it. Therefore, I supplement and revise as follows:
"A gap must not be covered by a previous element in the same characteristic sequence to count as a true gap—otherwise it is not considered a gap."
==
It's very easy to reflect. For point 1, its characteristic segment is 1-2. For 5, it's 5-6. For 7, it's 7-8. So 1-2, 5-6, 7-8 form a top fractal.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:35:44
Sorry,
something came up.
Signing off.
Goodbye.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 16:40:03
One more thing about the diagram above: point 3 has no new high. For the original line segment, that's equivalent to having two consecutive tops in a stroke where the earlier one (being lower) doesn't count. So 3 doesn't count as a top for the original line segment, and 3-4 is not treated as an element of the characteristic sequence.
Sorry, signing off, 88.
缠中说禅 2007/9/19 15:51:51
[Anonymous] Sina Netizen Delete all comments by this person
2007-09-19 15:49:52
That rock is going crazy~
==
It can't play Lei Feng forever.