If that's a cup and handle formation, I'm the rightful heir to the throne of the British Isles.

One of the major reasons that reliable formations have a bad rap is that FAR (special emphasis added) too many people call a particular pattern on the charts a formation that it does not, even in the least, resemble.

How many times have you heard, "Head and Shoulders" or "Inverted Head and Shoulders" when there aren't even both shoulders formed, much less the neckline was never broken with follow through, as Edwards and Magee defined the necessities of that formation? The same can readily be said about a "cup and handle" formation.

Most of these formations have some pretty strict guidelines that must be met for that chart pattern to actually be that formation.

Not saying that the Spinners ain't gonna rally. I AM saying that the formation is in no way, shape, or form a cup and handle.