How to judge whether its Accumulation or Distribution, some pointers:
#ProfGyan #StockMarket #StockMarketindia https://t.co/BlJQFriOVa

Sir how did you analyse that this is accumulation and not distribution when you posted the entry points earlier.
— Deevaang Daaya (@DayaDevang) March 12, 2022
More from Professor
Lest some charlie jumps to point out, let me make it clear that I haven't invented anything in stock market, all my knowledge of stock market comes from old farts. Just my observation is my own. https://t.co/uHNw8tV4AO

Plz advice how to identify accumulation and distribution phase...... to me Both looks same
— VIVEK VAID (@bobvaid) February 12, 2022
Here I will share what I believe are essentials for anybody who is interested in stock markets and the resources to learn them, its from my experience and by no means exhaustive..
First the very basic : The Dow theory, Everybody must have basic understanding of it and must learn to observe High Highs, Higher Lows, Lower Highs and Lowers lows on charts and their
Even those who are more inclined towards fundamental side can also benefit from Dow theory, as it can hint start & end of Bull/Bear runs thereby indication entry and exits.

Next basic is Wyckoff's Theory. It tells how accumulation and distribution happens with regularity and how the market actually
Dow theory is old but
Old is Gold....
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) January 23, 2020
this Bharti Airtel chart is a true copy of the Wyckoff Pattern propounded in 1931....... pic.twitter.com/tQ1PNebq7d
Needs to break below this level for real impact. https://t.co/r5KoExzFKc

NYMEX Crude Oil update !
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) July 1, 2022
Its not ready to come below US$ 100 which is a big psychological level ! Everytime it comes near that zone, it takes a bounce. https://t.co/xQ3dZZXNiu pic.twitter.com/7WS38JU6JF
More from Screeners
You May Also Like
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
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?