RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: And its ov Please tell me the books that you have read that have a "hammerhead reversal" ... I'm not asking to be a jerk and call you out ... I really want to find out.
Next ... itty bitty things? Volume is not an itty bitty thing ... volume is probably the most important part in confirming that a chart that forms a pattern is actually making that pattern. I admit maybe the length of the handle and head could be an "itty bitty" thing ... but look at any example of a hammer... the shadow is longer than the body. The definition of a hammer:
"A pattern with a small real body, no upper shadow and a longer than usual lower shadow." - M. Thomsett "Trading with Candlesticks"
You don't get that unless the body is smaller than 1/2 the length of the entire candle.
So, in my opinion, the candle of yesterday does not fit #1 the definition of a hammer, #2 is not confirmed with a necessarily positive volume. IMO, there is no pattern formed.
The reason you try to fit as much of the definition and volume as possible is if you don't ... sometimes (maybe often ... I'm sure there's research on this, but I don't know) you're going to be lead into a false signal.
The point is to give oneself the best chance. Nothing is perfect but if you start neglecting the "itty bitty things" like the definition and the volume you're missing the point of "nothing is perfect" (re: it doesn't mean ignore things that go against what you're hoping for and dismiss them as itty bitty .... that's called personal bias).