Stop blustering and read what I wrote. You can't base a trading plan around gaps.
No doubt. Gap fills as a strategy tend to be popular because of the conventional wisdom that they always fill. Of course, its more about when than whether.
Generally agree, but gap fill is more academic than practical as a trading plan. You can go broke waiting.
I have long since abandoned any hope of reasoning with you. I gave you a mild rebuke for pretending that God gives a rats patoote about the outcome of your trades. And you are so easily offended that you will not let the perceived insult die and now invoke comparisons to muderous evil. Your dementia is on a level so vast that I have to believe you're working an Andy Kaufman type gimmick.
You are spectacularly demented. You see conspiracies where none exist. You live in a world of fictional narrative designed to fill the gaping emptiness of the life you're wasting. I hope you never have a moment of clarity because I suspect the revelation of your purposelessness will be more than you can withstand. So, how do you like me now?
You mean I don't have the respect of a twenty something right wing racist climate change denier who's all geeked up to watch oily men in choreographed fake combat?
You want it both ways. They write a narrative that the economy is better, employment rates have reached targets, the crisis is long past, and yet rates need to remain at crisis levels. How come?
A lot of money gets vaporized waiting for that outcome. This stock was beloved at 115 and hated at 85, which tells you all you need to know about how convoluted trader brains can be. If nothing else, this stock needs a pause, some time to consolidate, and become somewhat boring before its next move in either direction. Gun to my head , I'd say higher.
Likely confirms what we already suspect.