Replies to post #32411 on Silver Falcon Mining Inc. (fka SFMI)

[YankBank]

I enjoy reading both of your posts and you both have proven to be very good with charts. The fact that you have a slight disagreement has actually taught me more tonight then I would've learned if you both agreed. Well done! Hope to see more chart analysis from both. Especially when the good news starts pouring in.

[Imperial Whazoo]

Hey boca -

nice to see ya

I've always been looking for a hammer too. But I think the wick will fill a gap. A bottoming hammer to fill the gap. Like you said, a hammer. Well done.

Look left on the chart and scope the gap at 10.75

There is and always has been a gap at 10.75. If this puppy punched the 78.6 fib line, which it did, it should not astonish a single soul that its targeting the gap.

I told everybody I was camped out, loaded for bear. (see March 23rd post) All I heard was I was FOS. So what. I called it as it really is on March 22, and its doing exactly what I pointed out in that day's post: NEAR a cycle low. NEAR it. Not a bottom having happened, as it has been lied that I said.... NEAR.... as in, not yet there but close, LOL

By NEAR, I privately held that the gap was the key, and when you finally showed up with a hammer as your call, then I figured I needed to weigh in too by pointing to the gap as the target of the wick of the hammer.

The gap is back at 04/13/10, BTW. BOTTOMING and NEAR.... aka: hammer filling gap.

There is all the difference in the world between a stock in the process of bottoming and one that has bottomed. We are experiencing the pain of a bottoming process, folks. Simple as that. And bottoming takes time. You know.... like what we have experienced in the two weeks since my March 22nd post (and the 23rd,too), maybe?

Like hurricane rick said, bottoming can not be called, and all we are seeing, gang, is SFMI bottoming as an ongoing process. It is nearing the lows. NEAR them. A wick that fills the gap. It may go lower, but at the very least, the gap is filled by it.

SFMI is bottoming. It has yet to bottom.

B O T T O M I N G.

Bottoming is not the same as bottomed, and this puppy is and has been bottoming.

Who can call the curvature of the turn at the bottom?

Not me.

Thats why I said it was bottoming. The week I told the blog it was near a cycle low (March 22nd), it had a low for the week of 13.9. Today it had a HOD of 14.3.

Its in a range, guys.

At the low end ot that range, but in a range.

If it breaks 12 AND GOES ON DOWN TO FILL THE GAP AT 10.75, thats normal. If it stays there, then I will be surprised. I do not think the new range will cap at 12 and have 10.75 at its mid-point or low. I think price will leg it on down to 10.75, briefly, and then pull back up. I expected back in March to see a hammer.... a long wick down to fill the gap at 10.75.... a classic bottoming candle called a hammer. That is what I've been looking for, gang. A hammer.

So camp out at about 10.75 and buy like hell.

You take out the 382, the 50, the 618 and the 786 Fib lines, and on top of that, there is a gap at the 100% line.... and its somehow a mystery, RB? Come on, fella. Every Fib fell, and there is a gap. It is highly likely the gapwill fill, and the only question is whether it will do a hammeror whether price will pull back and stay there.

So I scoped it way back in March and I began hoping for a hammer. A BOTTOMING formation called a hammer, RB. A hammer whose tail took out the gap. A hammer being a B O T T O M I N G formation.

And lookit.... I did this same thing once before, at .014. I saw where it had to go and I camped out at .014 because it was plain as day that .014 would be hit. So I put my bid in there and tried to get some. Sure enough, it hit .014, but I was not granted any shares at .014. Instead, I got a bunch at .018. Not bad, really, seeing as how I sold them at or above 22.8, LOL.

So this time, I spotted the Fib lines and scoped out the gap and figured we were headed there. The only question is: will we do a hammer, and NOT stay down at the 10.75 level, or will it take out the gap and stay down that low?

The guys who hate SFMI tell us its going down and staying down.

I don't think so, myself, but who can say.

I never call bottoms. I'll tell you, like hurrican rick does, that we are NEAR, but I'll never call bottoms. Now, as to pointing out a gap.... well, if you are going to lie about me and say I called a bottom, then I guess yoiu can smoke me out and get me to call a gap. But never a bottom.

I do not think it will stay down, BTW, and here's why:
SFMI had a killer 10K, no matter what anybody misrepresented and said about the 10K. So, SFMI is not going to succomb.

Management, bless their hard hearts, LOL, is a scoundrel bunch, IMHO, but they know how to play cards. They are deliberately refusing to placate shareholder fears by telling things we would all like to see, but they filed a killer 10K with the SEC, and despite the visceral hatred of SFMI by some posting here, SFMI is doing fine, the incessant unfair complaints notwithstanding.

My guess is and has been that we would see a hammer, with a tail down to the gap, then retreating back up. Whether it was a weekly hammer or a daily.... I'm waiting to see that one, myself. But on a 100 scale, I guessed it would be a 75% chance of a hammer and a 25% chance of being a range below 12 and approximately at or around 10.75.

We'll see.

Either way, I do not see it staying permanently below 10.75 No way.

So I'm camped out there, as of March 22nd, when I posted it was nearing a cycle low.

B O T T O M I N G

If it fills the gap and does a hammer, I guess I'll have the comfort of knowing I was right. That and a boatload of shares that I pick up down there, LOL. If it stays down there, I still think it will recoup these declines, and I'll come out smelling like a rose by June or July. That's my opinon, anyway.

After all, all you need do is to read this year's 10K and compare adjacent sections to last year's. All you need do is compare each section fairly. If is like.... well, obvious. :0)

So, peace boca. Nice to hear from you. And well said.

My ire, here, is not at you and Hurricane Rick, btw. You just received the reply post, thats all.

Imperial Whazoo

[Hurricane_Rick]

Boca Bobby,

Thank you for your awesome response and I don't mind being corrected especially when you present it deferentially rather than adversarially...it makes for a better learning experience for everyone reading. I also enjoy breaking down and discussing the TA for various charts. Let me address a few of your points...

Between July and November of last year we see where .112 - .121 held as support 4 times. So a safer way to enter for those not in would be to watch for those levels and see when the reversal candle appears. Then wait an additional day for confirmation of a true reversal. Then jumping in is a lower risk than trying to just call out a bottom.

You are absolutely correct here. RBKissMyAs pointed out in another post that I neglected to consider the .12 support line in my chart and although I had considered it in my personal analysis, when I annotated my chart I neglected to include it...and it should be discussed in that context as well since it is a very important part of trying to determine the bottom. If the .12 support line holds, that will be an additional factor in considering the reversal. If we break .12, the STO crossover won't occur anyway and we'll continue our downtrend until the signals align themselves for the next "opportunity".

I would like to know how many times you have seen this very exact set up to give you a 75% success rate at calling a reversal, but I digress.

Let me qualify my 75% success rate. I observed this primarily trading the FAS/FAZ 1-minute and 5-minute charts where, in theory, fundamentals are almost non-existent when analyzing the trade. When I first started trading FAS/FAZ using the lower "bollie bounce" strategy as one of my trading strategies, I found I was getting headfaked many times. If you pull up any chart of any security, you will see in a downtrend a candle might breach the lower bollie several times before the share price reverses. So I began incorporating the "Sub-20 STO crossover" as a confirmation to the bollie bounce signal. You will still get headfakes even if there is a sub-20 red-over-green STO crossover; however, if you wait for the STO to rise above 20, then that is further confirmation of the reversal. This particular scenario is where I experienced the greatest success...what I'm estimating as a 75% successful occurrence. In addition, I should clarify that the 75% successful occurrence for telegraphing a reversal does not necessarily mean a full blown reversal where a stock marches onward to new highs. If I could do that, I'd be a billionaire! A successful reversal occurrence for me is one that results in a profitable trade resulting after confirmation as opposed to a headfake resulting in a losing trade. Many times the reversal gets to at least the middle bollie (20MA) and ideally, if it is a true reversal rather than a technical bounce, it will touch (or breach) the upper bollie). If/when the confirmation on the sub-20 STO crossover occurs, I will post it in this forum and we'll see what happens. Who knows, I may just buy the crap out of SFMI at that point to make it happen!

Today's candle was a "bearish engulfing" type. This is bad news in the short term. I see just a little more pain before this can hit a true support level.

Yes, and this is where candlestick charting...as great as it can be for predicting price movement, it is also an inexact science because it doesn't always reflect the intra-candle activity that formed the candle. And as such, it can be manipulated so that a candle doesn't necessarily reflect the situation at hand.

Recall this morning that we opened up with a 200 share trade at .14, a 300 share trade at .123 and then a 400 share trade at .143 almost immediately. I don't even think the bid and ask were even at these levels, but I missed it on LII. After those trades, there wasn't a single trade above .13 for the rest of the day. So with the candle opening up immediately at .14 and then down to .123, those two piddly trades amounting in ~$65, painted a bearish engulfing candle before 10 seconds of trading had occurred. I know from experience this is a MM trick to make the chart look gloomier than it perhaps is. Note: They don't have to make the current chart look gloomy...we can see it plainly enough. I don't know how many chartists saw that candle and opted to sell for the reasons you stated in your post...maybe nobody did, but I still think it was painted because it in no way accurately reflected the supply and demand at the time. So, a more accurate portrayal of the red candle today should've "only" been as high as .13 and as low as .122. Obviously we're still in a downtrend, but not quite as gloomy as the bullish engulfing candle unfortunately illustrates due to the "fake" (IMO) .14 and .143 trades out of the gate.

In summary, as I'm sure you're aware, there are many different ways traders can dissect TA indicators and studies to attempt to predict price movement and buy/sell points. Some people solely use fibonacci retracements, some use candlesticks, some use support/resistance lines, some use flags/pennants/triangles, etc. All have their inherent strengths and weaknesses, so sometimes it is best to consider multiple indicators as long as they don't overlap too much and negate or confuse each other. With SFMI specifically, I think at .12 we're approaching a particular line in the sand from a T/A standpoint. It will be interesting to see if that line holds and the reversal occurs, or if we're in for further weakness.