Nyc1347\'s point about the prior reaction to the bounce, the time needed to recover and how it might be interpreted here is logical and deductively sound.
But as Jerry is or was wont to say (he hasn\'t said it much in the last few years) is that, no offense intended, \"it\'s more complicated than that.\"
Now that\'s me, Alan, talking and the point I want to make is that we\'re looking at two dimensional representations of at least three dimensional behavior. There are a lot of things going on that two planes can\'t tell us about. In the case of Rule (and all the others in here),growth and development are happening as we speak. Dynamism characterizes this whole development phase, this age. So while Rule reacted late last year to the top and needed time to recover, and came back this year with a new top, I agree a good sign, the expectation of a bounce today, not unreasonable and certainly possible given the behavior last year, nonetheless may not necessarily be forthcoming due to growth and development which the top last out signfies but so may the abbrevated recovery period which we won\'t know about for sure until after the figure comes in.
Let me give you another example. First Dude ran three at the same level before finally moving forward last out. Conventionally interpreted, this is an okay horse--it hasn\'t bounced--but annoying. Good, young horses should be running new tops every other race. Can\'t dispute that reasoning but don\'t mortal things grow at different rates. Some shoot up early, some late, some in multiple phases, some in one or two jumps. The point is First Dude is starting to move now and it may be that last 2 point move is the tip of the iceberg for all we know. It may not be too.
As my 9th grade science teacher said \"the past is the key to the future\" and that\'s why we look at sheet patterns and lots of them for formulate opinions as to how current replicas will play out. But there are a lot of things going on that we can\'t measure accurately, real factors happening randomly which can affect outcomes. To the extent that one can at least be cognizant that these random factors may be at play may allow one to view and interpret a line differently which may or may not be lucrative.