QUOTE(linrom @ Mar 11 2008, 09:19 PM)
Today was one of those extremely rare events, a Sigma 4 point move on the Dow. Since 1970 there were only 38 such occurrences.
When I examined Dow's historical data, I noticed that during Bear Markets, a cycle of violent and sharp counter-trend moves occur with regularity. Even during the most powerful bear markets, these counter-trend "rallies" were more prevalent than even steep corrective days. I called them
buying panics. But unlike Sigma 4 occurrences, they are usually 1-2 standard deviation of lesser magnitude, however, there are a few that can only be described as bear market rallies with magnitude of Sigma 4. Out of 38, at most, 7 could be so classified.
Sigma 4 events are not
buying panics. They are trend-changing events that typify: attempts at bottom forming, powerful moves right of the bottom, or bull market breakouts. A characteristic of Sigma 4 move is that they rarely show up in isolation, usually they are followed up by another Sigma 4 event within a week or so.
This is best illustrated by 1998, where following a deep correction, the Dow advanced 3.82% off the low on 9/01/98, This was followed up by another strong move, 4.98% ,on 9/8/98 . On 10/15/98, the Dow broke clean with 4.15% advance and began its plus 1000 point ascend into November, 1998.
Another day like this next week, and its off to new highs.
[attachmentid=96471]
Very interesting, thanks.
I also believe the odds favor an IT move up from here, as I suggested on monday. FWIW, and this may sound ridiculous, but one of the only Wall Street technical analysis guys that I have some respect for is a dude from Citibank (I know, I know... trust me, I know how ridiculous that sounds

), and he came out yesterday with a piece where he's putting his reputation (his wha-???

) on the line by saying he thinks, at the risk of being remembered as the goofiest call of his life, a very important low has been set. he doesn't go as far as saying the end of the bear, but that at least a good countertrend rally has begun. In only mention it because he uses a different approach than I do, or Doc's, so it's interesting to note. Can't comment too much on it, though, sorry.