>>20811571>My point is, you have the data, and you can get those four datapoints if you want. I won't do your fucking work for you.Firstly, go fuck yourself. Secondly, TL;DR - I am not right, but neither are you. The blue boxes represent the only areas where overbought would've been active.
I think. Still drinking my coffee.Let's figure out what those four points even are.
The first one is in February - manually preparing this data going back to March 1st was already a bigger pain in my ass than your dumb Machine Learning ass has been, if you want to argue that point, go get your own fucking numbers as well.
The second point is the adjustment that happened on March 9th, third point is March 15th, and the fourth point is the adjustment on the 19th.
>Look at those four points.>>Would adjust up ignoring market activity - checkWrong. The adjustment on the fifteenth was net negative views. By your own logic, overbought kicked in on the 14th, which I did originally have highlighted as an instance where it was, for some reason, active. On the fifteenth, if anything, it stacked with what should've been a downwards adjustment anyways. The market pulled her price further up.
>>Have been bought to a price higher than the final adjustment - check>According to your (wrong) view of adjustments being based off the previous adjustment, these would be overbought by definition. It doesn't matter what the numbers were there.Yes, it does.
>>20812564Grug know when grug need admit grug wrong. Grug also know when other grug not realize they are bigger grug.
