Have you even noticed my numerous prior posts on this board about volume being the only real indicator that is worth bothering with?
Before you lecture about a mistake in the way a technical indicator, such as gaps, is being looked at, you might take a moment to notice that numerous posts were previously made on this board, by me, that talk about volume being the only real key to understanding what is going on with the trading involving a stock.
So, here's a thought to try out on you: read the thread I've posted and notice that I place volume atop all other technicals. Then read my other posts, in particular the ones about gaps. When you do, you'll stumble on something telling regarding the conversation I had HOPED to arouse about gaps.
I raised a simple question, which you appear to be oblivious to having been asked. I asked the following:
In the case of a gap that happens close to the day trading in a new stock starts, do such gaps need to be filled or are they an exception to the rule that everyone who has traded for any length of time ought to know, which holds that gaps tend to get filled?
In addition to not bothering to read my thread on VOLUME, you appear to not have noticed that this thought was sent out into the ethers. It appears that the only answer I'm getting from you is a lecture about a mistake involving gaps that I'm not making.
The idea is simple. Gaps tend to get filled. HIVE.V has a gap October 20th. Trading started a mere month prior to that gap. New issues tend to trade thinly and often, they are choppy. Choppy, with gaps. Kind of an expected thing. So, my thought was that PERHAPS, the gap on Oct 20 was not to be treated as necessitating being filled.
Thats what I wondered about.
I'm wasting my time posting. I've gotten fabuloous ideas from several people because they respect ideas and give out novel ideas on their own, but not even bothering to read the thread is not the same as engaging in conversatioon, is it?
Imperial Whazoo