How to know smart money entries easily?
Simply go to
https://t.co/KVSw24ngG7
Click on buy only option which shows only smart money entries.
Buy only means -> Client only bought these stocks and didn't do intraday on that.
More from SSStockAlerts
Dear Friends,
#Sssnewfeature
We have implemented the Price range scans to identify which are in the tight price range for the last few days. Use these scans along with the other scans like the Mark Minervini pattern(High momentum).
@krishchess @Techtrades365
1/n
- These scans can help to find out the stocks whose range is < 5% or 7%.
1. 3 candles price range below 7%
2. 5 candles price range below 7%
3. 10 candles price range below 7%
4. 3 candles price range below 5%
5. 5 candles price range below 5%
6. 10 candles price range below 5%
Why range is important?
When you enter into a trade, for setting up a stop loss if we get the stocks within the 7% price range then we can keep our sl with less than 7%.
- As per Mark Minervini, don't keep the SL with more than 8%.
https://t.co/RkaOwvfBaq
Scans => price range
#Sssnewfeature
We have implemented the Price range scans to identify which are in the tight price range for the last few days. Use these scans along with the other scans like the Mark Minervini pattern(High momentum).
@krishchess @Techtrades365
1/n
- These scans can help to find out the stocks whose range is < 5% or 7%.
1. 3 candles price range below 7%
2. 5 candles price range below 7%
3. 10 candles price range below 7%
4. 3 candles price range below 5%
5. 5 candles price range below 5%
6. 10 candles price range below 5%
Why range is important?
When you enter into a trade, for setting up a stop loss if we get the stocks within the 7% price range then we can keep our sl with less than 7%.
- As per Mark Minervini, don't keep the SL with more than 8%.
https://t.co/RkaOwvfBaq
Scans => price range
#CDSL
- Stock rallied to 986 from 789(25%) in just 23days.
- Able to catch the momentum stock near its area of value.
- Find out the stocks which respect which moving average using our AOV analysis and know this type of stocks earlier before bigger move.
- Stock rallied to 986 from 789(25%) in just 23days.
- Able to catch the momentum stock near its area of value.
- Find out the stocks which respect which moving average using our AOV analysis and know this type of stocks earlier before bigger move.
#Areaofvalue analysis#CDSL
— SSStockAlerts (@ssstockalerts) May 6, 2021
Buy near 21 SMA support. This stock respects 21 SMA for 84% time. Backtested for last 1 year.
Candle size is getting smaller and volume also less then avg volume.
Any time it can reverse from here.
Help/Supporthttps://t.co/rRCfjf3KIi pic.twitter.com/KGyyAAQ1tV
More from Screeners
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?