aparsai, you say comments are welcome. I hope you mean that.
While you may be forgiven for thinking I’m following you around with an argumentative point of view, I do think you need to be more open in your qualification for these types of formations. There are as many ‘inverted hammers’ that are bullish reversals, in retrospect, as there are those that lead to continuations of existing bear, and bull trends.
We suffer from lack of reliable volume data in FX which is more of an issue than the incidence of this type of candle.
The only difference between an inverted hammer and a shooting star is that the former ‘comes after a decline’ (according to Nison) which is a rather retrospective analysis, don’t you think. You can only really qualify it as an inverted hammer after subsequent price action has confirmed it as such. Otherwise it’s a shooting star. Or something else…
It’s not just your posts. There was another poster today extolling the virtues of the price ‘bouncing off’ Bollies. Obviously quite oblivious to the fact that the price makes the Bollies, it doesn’t ‘react’ to them. And when we hear bods describing how the price ‘bounces off’ the MA – of that price. LOL. The MAs ARE the price. All indicators are derived from price. Of course they will ‘interact’ with the price – they are a derivative of it – from it –after it.
Candles no less fall into the fascinating area of imagining they ‘mean’s something more than the price itself. They merely capture, as do OHLC bars, the price at one instant in time for a specific level of granularity of time. Nothing more. To read more than that into them is madness.