@Quillnpenn @Arindam So Charlie suggested I take a Simon Sez and go back a year and mark all the buys indicated by Simon Sez. So I tried and the first chart I choose was CMG because it is a great stock that had been on a good run and probably had lots of good buy signal.
Scrolling to the left to see the past showed lots of buy signals. Or did it. Turns out they were ghosts and did not exist on the chart the day they would have been signals, therefore did not exist as a Simon Sez buy signal.
In the screen shots blow, I mark the smiley faces with numbers, where 1 is the first one nearest today and 8 is the one farthest back in time, where I stopped. It is fascinating. Remember, in order for the smiley face to be a signal, it must be on the chart when that bar is on the right edge of the chart. That is, it must be âtodayâ in the time period you are looking at. I may not have explained it well, but the screen shots will show it.
Here is the first one, and it is the current chart ending today.
It looks like #1 was somewhere I could have bought when it signaled me back on 4/22. Ok, so lets go back left (past) and see what happens. As we go back in time, the smiley face on 4/22 disappears, it was never then when we could have used it.
No worries, now #2 has a smiley face for us to act on. But lets scroll back a bit and see it as it might had been in real-time.
Oops, it is gone. No worries, #3 has just seemed to alert us, so letâs scroll back on thatâŚ
Oops, gone again. #4 looks promising
Nope, did not exist in real time.
But #5 looks good.
Nope, but #6 looks good
Nope, but #7 looks good
Nope, but #8 looks good.
So letâs go back a little bit and verity #8
Eureka! #8 really exists as new bars are appearing to the right of it. So we had 1 buy signal in October of 2023.
Am I doing something terribly wrong? Maybe I am tired and missing the obvious, I have done that before. What is the deal?
I seems that if you take improper screenshots of a chart like this, then say âSee, if you bought after that smiley face, you would have made good moneyâ. But that seems like accidental false advertising with this data.
Pete