You read our posts and saw evidence of our calls. Before it happened, I wrote it's just bouncing off the $1.05 and sitting at 1.06.
If it drops below $1.05 it'll drop lower, but it bounded. Then we waited for the tip off. The volume, which we discussed, and ZAPPO--it cam, we jumped on for the "technical ride" which we knew would be to the resistance of $1.22-23. If %1.24 was broken and held, it would have probably broke out again, but, %1.24 held.
We/I sold at $1.22-23.
It was all called live and in living color.
A couple of regulars were witness.
Purely technical and live.
Ya have to understand, there are traders out there who watch for these situations. Cel Sci isn't the only one watched.
It just so happened, it has been setting up for this for a few weeks. The $1.05 was key.
Weeks ago, pumpers were getting all bent out of shape whe some folks wrote about $1.05.
Ya cannot fight the tape.
As a trader, you just play what the tape gives you, and in this case it came, and played itself out.
It was that simple, yet complex.
Everyone is trying to figure out reasons for today's action.
That was the reason, plain and simple.
Oh, and if you're asking what happens next?
Don't know for sure, but the new magic numbers to watch are $1.41-42 on top and $.92 below.
Will know more tomorrow.
And one more thing; It doesn't really matter unless you take advantage of the trade. If you're holding, you don't believe in this chit anyway, and in the long haul, doesn't matter right? :)
GL to all.
The move yesterday had nothing to do with technicals. Go look at when the IMGN cancer news came out. Then, go look when CVM started to move. The pros picked up on this right away.....I just happened to see the IMGN news come across and then saw CVM take off shortly after. That's the correlation on the move....not technicals.
IMGN news and it's spike came an hour and a half before CVM's move.
It may be a considerable factor, but there is no denying that the move was also fueled by technicals as it came off a major support level.
However, I said before and will again, technically the move was a lot stronger then I would have thought for a support bounce... perhaps IMGN's news helped carry a technical bounce to higher levels.
So you are VERY wrong when you say it had nothing to do with technicals, whereas I tend to disagree with the original poster that it was PURELY a technical move.
Terp, I agree with you......technicals typically don't cause this level of increase, in that short amount of time. Technicals play out over a longer span of time, usually, long drawbacks, and then long climbs....not 2-3 hour moves like this.....doesn't make for good logic....I think something's up.
I have to add my two cents in on this.
No doubt the $1.05 line was clearly a support level worth watching, many of us knew it and posted about last week.
However, I don't see, maybe it is something I have yet to learn, how this bounce we saw was in ANY way JUST a technical bounce.
Should have bounced up maybe to about $1.12 and settled back around $1.10. It way way above that and never really lost any momentum... well a bit at $1.24 but more so it ran out of time. There was a major increase in volume as well. Perhaps it was just short covering that fueled the move but I think something else is in play.
Also generally speaking a bounce off resistance comes off at an angle similar to the angle is comes down. We drifted almost sideways to support, even touching it once hours before, then we drifted riding right on support for almost an hour before it suddenly shot up.
Now someone help me out here, this event in many respects matches the event we saw the last time we hit the 100-day average back on 11/2 and 11/3... I seem to recall however, that bounce coincided with a news PR but I don't see anything for 11/3 now... maybe I am misrecollecting...
Looking back at the charts for that period, you can see the initial run (which also created a bullish engulfing pattern) went sideways for two days followed by an almost equal run on the third day, followed by a gap on the forth day peaking at about $1.50.
Will history repeat itself? If so I think we are looking at a spike soon over $1.67 before settling back to trade between $1.67 and $1.43.
Hat's off to Cmeg for a nice call and trade, but I tend to agree with you - the size of the pps spike, along with the huge bump in volume, suggest something more than traders recognizing a bounce off of support.
I 'm fine with trading as far as :
- trading intentions and thresholds are well defined before done (that will serve as advice to followers as well as proofs),
- the trader does not bash when he has sold and does not pump outrageously when he buys
To answer the questions, even though some are dumb.
1-No Tiany-The idea, the notification, the ytrades were all posted as it was unfolding and in fact the naming of the pivot point of $1.05 was clearly identified in the AM before any of the action started. Just ask several other posters who were there and even involved.
2-My trades were all completed though Ameritrade.
They're not "quite" as quick as some others.
3-Will I look like a dumbass if it goes to $1.41 today?
Not likely. Did it break and hold $1.24?
4-An argument may be made that it wasn't "purely technical". IF an announcement is made today, and that influx of buying just happened to come in at $1.05, than I'll take a bit out of my hat.Nope, the $1.05 bounce was technical, and if the bounce occurred at $1.08 or higher, than I would agree.
All I'm saying it within this unfolding saga Cel Sci presents trading opps because of it's volatility and it's basically a PR driven stock with many detractors, providing pushing, tugging etc.
No change in continuing to hold a core position.
But a core position doesn't make me money.
GL to all.