The "Pretty Punch" Returns — When the Wind Rises Again
2007/8/30 16:05:43
Is the Pretty 50 taking a breather a good thing or bad? If you still couldn't see it clearly yesterday morning, that's forgivable. If after reading this ID's afternoon post yesterday — "Other individual stocks, taking advantage of the Pretty 50's rest to stir things up, this is perfectly natural" — you still don't understand, your best fate is to go be a Confucius Man. If you still don't get it by today, even Confucius Man has probably given up on you.
"The Pretty Punch Returns — When the Wind Rises Again." What wind? The wind of second and third-tier stocks. Let the index go to hell — reopen the first-half-of-the-year trend of second and third-tier stocks. The Pretty Punch transforms the ugly ducklings of second and third-tier stocks into strapping, handsome mature men — this is what "The Pretty Punch Returns — When the Wind Rises Again" means.
What's a "kiss climax"? Look at 600635, 000998, 000938, 000099, 600578, 000915, etc. — which one didn't kiss so hard that ten thousand grasses danced wildly, sand and stones flew, the sky went dark, and the sun and moon lost their light? Even 600008, which recently started surging — wasn't the kiss before August 20th wild enough to make ten thousand grasses dance, sand and stones fly, the sky go dark, and the sun and moon lose their light? Look at today's limit-up stocks — how many were cases of a single kiss making ten thousand grasses dance wildly, sand and stones fly, the sky go dark, and the sun and moon lose their light? Remember how this ID re-emphasized the importance of the "kiss" a few days ago? Must someone else do the kissing for you?
The above are just some minor technical tricks — I won't mention them again. Those fated to receive them will; the rest can do whatever.
Now, things are preliminarily returning to the script this ID hopes to direct. This chapter of the script has only one line: "Index droops, second and third-tier rise." An index slump will prevent some extremely pressing contradictions from being immediately inflamed, while second and third-tier stocks rising can burn off some excess energy. Remember what this ID said on August 13th? The original text: "Regarding individual stocks, the rally in first and second-tier component stocks will continue, but watch out for short-term oscillation risk after excessive gains. Once earnings risk is released, second and third-tier concept stocks will find renewed momentum."
Now, mid-year earnings announcements are nearing their end — what needs to happen, needs to happen. And why did this ID furiously criticize the "fast boys" recently? Because their pace had the potential to disrupt this ID's script. People who mess around recklessly with other people's money — how can they not be taught a lesson?
This ID's holding structure is very clear: China-prefix stocks and those dozen-plus second and third-tier stocks that everyone knows about. For the China-prefix names, those like Chalco that refuse to rest — let them rest, and take the opportunity to trade the difference. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, from a medium to long-term perspective, these China-prefix stocks' potential is far from fully realized. This ID is happy to hold them till the seas dry and the rocks crumble. But right now, doesn't this ID think it's quite romantic to get 4N9 on some second and third-tier stocks below?
The macro environment — this ID has already stated very clearly — alarms are sounding constantly, and at one point it nearly went off accidentally. At a time like this, everyone who treasures the long-term health of the market should understand what needs to be done. The market's bullish energy has nowhere to vent, so find a place for it to vent without affecting the overall big picture — this should be the consensus of all current market participants.
Of course, the market belongs to everyone. Some people, playing recklessly with other people's money, will ultimately kill the market. Such people must face severe condemnation from the market. Now, it seems this bunch has run a bit low on fresh capital, and their arrogance has probably subsided somewhat — so go reflect on yourselves.
On short-term technicals, there's nothing much to say — it's still the 5-minute oscillation mentioned yesterday, which is fine. Tomorrow is the weekend and the monthly candlestick close. Any gentle price action is acceptable to this ID. Over the weekend, what might happen? Let's first see what's already happened — the recent gentle blows include:
- Risk warnings; 2. Suspension of new fund issuance; 3. The "through train"; 4. The 600 billion, etc.
So what about the not-so-gentle blows?
This ID can say clearly: channeling the market's bullish impulse into second and third-tier stocks is merely the best option, but not an absolutely safe one. Rather than letting the market continue its impulse on the Pretty 50, better to play a round of "The Pretty Punch Returns — When the Wind Rises Again."
Please note: no stock is worth chasing at highs, and with the policy landscape still volatile, there's even less reason to chase.
Since the wind has risen again today, I can answer questions and deliver Pretty Punches until 5 o'clock.
Replies
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:18:28
Honestly Chanting Buddha Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:15:09
Boss, regarding fractals: for two adjacent K-bars, as long as one end has the same value, it must be an inclusion relationship? If two adjacent K-bars have completely identical highs and lows, does that not count as inclusion? Or does inclusion only mean one bar is "completely" within the range of another — i.e., high less than high and low greater than low? Please clarify, thanks!
==
As long as one end is the same, that's necessarily inclusion. Both ends the same is even more so. Therefore, if it's not an inclusion relationship, there's necessarily no need to consider equality.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:22:21
fzznl Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:15:33
China-prefix names, those like Chalco that refuse to rest — let them rest, and take the opportunity to trade the difference.
Are you saying little Aluminum was misbehaving and got a lesson from Chán Jiě?
Sigh, I was too slow and didn't get out in time.
==
Actually, this stock's price action yesterday was the same as 00214960 on that day — just think back and you'll understand. Missing it isn't a big deal. This stock definitely still has significant medium to long-term upside. Short-term rest, oscillation-based opportunities are still plenty.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:29:30
[Anonymous] 天眼 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:09:07
Boss, hello! The range of a 5-minute hub can be seen as the overlapping portion of three 1-minute trend types.
What principles apply when decomposing a 5-minute hub into three 1-minute trend types?
==
Please first get the logical relationship straight — it is three overlapping 1-minute trend types that form a 5-minute hub. If you don't first distinguish those three 1-minute trend types, how do you know you're looking at a 5-minute hub?
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:37:01
Approaching the Standard Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:32:47
Math Sister, could you say something about Shanghai B-shares? They've been really miserable lately — completely directionless!
==
What do you mean directionless? Aren't those moving averages right in the middle of seeking a "kiss"? It all depends on whether the kiss succeeds.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:39:43
[Anonymous] 小方 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:17:17
[Anonymous] 小方 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:14:12
Could the blogger please show us which China-prefix stocks you're holding again, so we can study?
Looking forward to your reply!!
==
Everyone here knows — PetroChina, China Merchants, Chalco, CITS, and the like. Nothing much to say.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:41:32
[Anonymous] July Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:23:01
mm, after learning about line segments, I want to use line segment quasi-hubs to operate on stroke divergence within line segments, but it doesn't seem to work very well.
May I ask why, mm? I feel that logically, this should also be workable.
==
Are you trading in outer space? No transaction fees or stamp duty needed? Use at minimum 1-minute level or above — levels too small are meaningless.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:42:49
[Anonymous] Sina User Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:39:39
I've been applying your theory to futures but finding it hard to locate hubs — there are always gaps.
==
Gaps shouldn't change anything. If the gap is within a line segment, it's still a line segment; if within a stroke, it's still a stroke.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:44:55
[Anonymous] Sina User Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:39:52
Boss, after a third buy point, comparing the upward segment with the segment leaving the hub for consolidation divergence — sometimes the pullback forms a hub, sometimes it's just a slight pullback then continues rising without forming a hub. Is there a way to predict which? Thanks.
==
That means the segment simply hasn't finished yet — you can't compare something unfinished with something finished. Please review the nesting interval method — that's precisely designed to avoid the above situation.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:48:54
[Anonymous] 吻 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:44:32
Chán jj, hello!
May I ask: how long do you think housing prices in China's first-tier cities can keep rising? We can't afford houses — it's really distressing...
==
I've heard they're going to 40% down payment. This move affects too many conflicting interests. Whether it can actually come through in the end, even this ID has some doubts. In China, many things — until the very last second — can't be said with 100% certainty.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 17:00:16
Happy vs Veggie Bug Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:40:45
Chán Jiě, from your answer just now, I derive the inclusion definition for two adjacent K-bars:
For adjacent K-bars K1 and K2, K1's high is G1 and low is D1, K2's high is G2 and low is D2. If
D1 <= D2, G1 >= G2 then K1 includes K2
D1 >= D2, G1 <= G2 then K2 includes K1
Also, in Lesson 65, "Suppose the nth K-bar satisfies the inclusion relationship with the (n+1)th, while the nth and (n-1)th are not in an inclusion relationship. Then if gn>=gn-1, we call the (n-1)th, nth, (n+1)th K-bars upward." — this passage should also have an issue: "gn>=gn-1" should be changed to "gn>gn-1."
Is this correct?
Also, for example if a stock opens limit-up and stays locked all day, closing at limit-up, can all the intraday K-bars be merged into a single K-bar, meaning the day's price action can be seen as a gap plus one K-bar??
==
It's actually the same thing — non-inclusion naturally means no equality. But note: the equality in inclusion refers to absolute equality, while the later equality also includes measurement equality situations.
Also, a straight limit-up can certainly be viewed that way, so as stated from the very beginning, this only forms the smallest level hub. And from the perspective of constructing the smallest level hub starting with fractals, it doesn't even count as a fractal, let alone a stroke.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 17:01:13
[Anonymous] 吻 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:52:17
Chán jj, one more question:
On Shanghai's 1-minute chart, why can't the line segment from point 62 to 63 be divided into three sub-line segments? It seems to meet the line segment division criteria.
Looking forward to your reply!! Thank you!!
We love Chán Chán!!!
==
This was already explained yesterday — please go study the definition of the second scenario again.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 17:02:20
[Anonymous] 50年以前 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:52:50
I noticed the teacher didn't mention Bank of China just now. Has the teacher already dumped it because of the subprime issue?
==
No need to list everything, right? A household registry check? To put it this way — this ID also didn't mention China Unicom.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 17:06:43
Carefree Journey Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:53:05
Confusion:
When sister answered questions just now about "equality" being an inclusion relationship, doesn't this contradict Lesson 65 where it says "Suppose the nth K-bar satisfies the inclusion relationship with the (n+1)th, while the nth and (n-1)th are not in an inclusion relationship. Then if gn>=gn-1, we call the (n-1)th, nth, (n+1)th K-bars upward; if dn<=dn-1, we call the (n-1)th, nth, (n+1)th K-bars downward."?
==
>= should actually be read as "not less than" — which of course includes the case of equality, but doesn't mean this case necessarily exists. Since non-inclusion is the premise, naturally this case doesn't arise — what's the contradiction?
Also, one must note that the equality in inclusion relationships must be absolute equality — meaning the last decimal place in the software must be identical. Generally speaking, this situation rarely occurs.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 17:08:17
Sorry, I've already exceeded the time limit, and there are other things to attend to.
Signing off. Goodbye.
缠中说禅 2007/8/30 16:14:16
[Anonymous] 白玉兰 Delete all comments by this person
2007-08-30 16:12:12
Sister, you've worked hard!
Push a little more tomorrow and my 915 will be in profit too.
As of today, this year's return is a respectable 245%.
Thank you again, sister.
==
Ultimately you can only rely on yourself. Others at best can point and gesture — none of them can be depended on.