3/n
This thread will briefly explain my stock selection process for trading
1) At EOD, short list stocks which are in bullish formations or bullish patterns on higher box sizes or time frames. On monthly and weekly time frames or 1% 2% and 3% box sizes
2/n
3/n
Check for price and volume breakouts in candlestick charts on daily timeframes for confirming the momentum
4/n
5/n
More from DTBhat
#TATAPOWER futures on daily charts, finally breaks out of the tight range. Open counts are at 150 and 187. https://t.co/lPshkD3FeA
#TataPower on daily charts - a breakout above 126 will be very interesting. It is bullish on higher boxsizes and has given a reversal after a pullback on lower boxsize. Price charts and RS charts self-explanatory pic.twitter.com/9ulYjvBVza
— DTBhat (@dtbhat) July 12, 2021
#TVSMOTOR futures - new counts opened. Earlier count of 795 reached !!!!!!
100+ points done and counting
@ctrameshraja sir you had nudged me on this below 700 https://t.co/lMPqvWLLUm
100+ points done and counting
@ctrameshraja sir you had nudged me on this below 700 https://t.co/lMPqvWLLUm
#FusionMatrix - top three outperforming stocks are from Auto Sector. @shivaji_1983 we discussed this today#MNM (M&M)#TVSMOTOR#ASHOKLEY https://t.co/n6J2oKT4aO pic.twitter.com/iOxKEveBSn
— DTBhat (@dtbhat) June 23, 2022
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x