There are two opinions as to what constitutes a gap. Case 1, which you apparently side with, calls it a gap based on close to open or visa versa. Case 2 is my choice because it simply works better IMHO and that is that the wicks define the gaps. So, as I see it, my question to you is "What gaps?". As I see it there no gap at .18 at all, even using your approach.
Looking left, there is no gap on 9/11 - 9/12: 9/11 hod = .181 and 9/12 lod = .18. 9/12 low fills any gap... ie: no gap at .18 for you to contend needs to be filled. It has already been filled. No gap at .18.
And then take 9/13 - 9/14. 9/13 hod = .20 and 9/14 lod = .199; hence even here, the close to open gap between 9/13 & 9/14 is mistaken, for it was filled intraday already on 9/14 and thus does not need to be filled again.
And furthermore, if you did use your gap approach, still your statement that there is a gap at .18 is unsupportable. The only gap under your approach is the close to open gap of 9/13 to 9/14. There is simply no gap at .18 that needs to be filled. The only gap under your system is the close to open gap of .187 open 9/13 to .21 open 9/14, so I don't know what charts you are looking at where this alleged gap at .18 is located.
Now as it looks to me, we have a narrow range that includes both .18 & .187, so we very well may oscillate until news, backing down to these prices, but its not to fill any gap at .18 my friend. There ain't one there to fill at .18.
And furthermore, given the volumes that accompanied the climb from 9/10 to the peak of this little wave on 9/17, there is no way you can demonstrate that there is more demand feeding a pullback than feeding the ascent. Heres a rule everyone can live by: in any wave, if the volume on one side noticably outweighs the volume on the other, the side with the greater volume defines the wave's trend. Hence, even if PLTG does retrace to .18 or below, if the volume trend stays as it currently is (Wed & Thur vol were 67K & 78K respectively, for heaven's sake, compared to volumes of 383K, for example, on the ascent side) then the trend remains up and folks should be buyers in spades, IMHO, on any fortuitous dips into .18 territory. So, dire calls that we are pulling back to ,18 are not only wrong in that we have no gap to fill, they are wrongminded in tone too because the volumes should be informing us that any such pullback is a buying opportunity.
Thats technical analysis 101, as far as I'm concerned, not some offhand reference to a non-existant gap at .18.
GLTY & peace
Imperial Whazoo
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
