Hdfc bank
1460 gap resistance
Exit there https://t.co/J1I9KvRwIX
HDFCBANK pic.twitter.com/dsqm3ALgrT
— Pramod Sharma\U0001f549\ufe0f\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@itspramods) April 27, 2022
More from Pramod Sharma🕉️🇮🇳
Conditions
rsi >50
RSI avove ma60
Price above ema 60
It is for indicators lovers.. i see rarely but as per my experience enough setup if one is follow with descipline
rsi >50
RSI avove ma60
Price above ema 60
ITC
— Pramod Sharma\U0001f549\ufe0f\U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3 (@itspramods) March 29, 2022
Try this combo RSI 60 period on 60 min chart
Backtest and tell me result.
Rsi/ma crossover abovev50 level pic.twitter.com/In3xrgWQz0
It is for indicators lovers.. i see rarely but as per my experience enough setup if one is follow with descipline
More from Hdfcbank
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?