This is one H&S we all want to see breaking down and hitting its target !!!
A super small (weak) right shoulder and then a retest of the neckline are the two most important ingredients of this chart....
Extremely CLASSIC chart pattern in the making.
#brentcrude #CrudeOil

More from Kunal Bothra
And here it is:
The 3 most important rules which I follow in spotting a major trend reversal laid out in this stock, 'as it is'.
1. Trend reversal
2. Price patterns
3. Indicator confirmation
Perfect TA chart.
All boxes ticked !!
Do comment, like and share !!!
#DRREDDY https://t.co/4JGg71GenE
The 3 most important rules which I follow in spotting a major trend reversal laid out in this stock, 'as it is'.
1. Trend reversal
2. Price patterns
3. Indicator confirmation
Perfect TA chart.
All boxes ticked !!
Do comment, like and share !!!
#DRREDDY https://t.co/4JGg71GenE

Today at 2 pm:
— Kunal Bothra (@kbbothra) July 5, 2022
I will bring to you one of the SUPER FINEST TECHNICAL CHART setup on a largecap name.
Agar yeh nahi chal paya toh kuch nahi chal paayega\u2026
Retweeet tsunami has to come for this one\u2026 #stock #breakout #technical
More from Crudeoil
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