The axioms of financial market analysis (or the whole truth about the right and wrong use of indicators) - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Axiom number one : If you have to lose, you lose.
;)
Is it about the hump that fixes the hump? :-)
The most important word is IF! Rewrite the condition for this operator and let those who should lose.
while(ты должен проиграть) ты проиграешь;;)Is it about the hump that fixes the hump? :-)
;)
if(Ты должен проиграть){то проиграй}
else{Хер вам}
Your option.
if(Ты должен проиграть){то проиграй}
else{Хер вам}
depends on what kind of contracts, if a lot of big ones and long, then maybe.
$100-250bn someone sold them for that amount!!!!
Couldn't it just be the lively trading this week, where a lot of flock traded amongst themselves actively, resulting in such a sum?
And if not, what is the limit to the amount of dough in billions, when it is already questionable who was in the market and what they were doing?
And how often this amount of money conditionally divided occurs in the market, respectively, and how often signals in this case and what is the output of these signals in relation to the periodicity of their appearance.
Obviously, what kind of contracts, options and futures?)
If the flock is that much, then they must be VIPs))))
In the market by any means was present market maker, the Central Bank of England, which in the absence of a counterparty to the transaction should act in his role. For such sums there is no doubt that he bought these contracts from the "flock").
All I know is that the cb was not profitable at the rate lower than 1.50, and now they are not profitable at the rate below 1.53.
There is no such thing as often, money is always present and it says something, and the output is determined only by the ability to use these circumstances.
Reread your argument. It's interesting to see how people argue. The younger ones haven't heard of Karl Marx, but he said that market trade is all about "Commodity money commodities". And the weak link here is the "GOOD". In our case (or rather those who trade on Forex) there is no weak link. We have "MONEY, MONEY, MONEY". Primitive but it characterizes Forex as a no-loss system. That's me talking about potatoes. Shove your greed where it belongs ......... Volumes ??? How can the volume to sell exceed the volume to buy???? You mean you sold two grand and bought three. ???? Just like the kids from the "Masha and the Bear" cartoon!!! MT shows ticks but not volume, that is, it can only measure population density per square inch. No more than that. It will show excess volume at 3,000 trades at 10 bucks, even if someone wants to make one trade in the opposite direction for lakhs, but due to lack of supply will do it for the same amount but once. And that's not to mention those who enter the trade on the market.
Now let's move on to the first grade of high school from kindergarten. We read the book Memoirs of a Stock Speculator (Edwin Lefebvre) where it is written in black and white that loss is a prerequisite for gain, and more simply, sometimes you need to lose a bit to gain a big sum. So these very market makers lose so that we can take a jackpot. The market should be watched and not left to the mercy of robots. How can we criticize those who do our dirty work for us? Respect and respect.
And I'm tired of telling you to read a primer. I have two chapters in my book devoted to it. I think there is no need to say that the trend appears when the liquidity decreases. But here, liquidity is the difference between supply and demand, or in other words, an abrupt decrease in volumes. And there will always be buyers. And even those skeptics who are about the franc (by the way, made a good score, but I think they will have to sue the brokerage company, they do not want to pay). The market is the market. They have to pay their salaries and repay their loans, etc.. And they will buy what they need for any money.
Reread your argument. It's interesting to see how people argue. The younger ones haven't heard of Karl Marx, but he said that market trade is all about "Commodity money commodities". And the weak link here is the "GOOD". In our case (or rather those who trade on Forex) there is no weak link. We have "MONEY, MONEY, MONEY". Primitive but it characterizes Forex as a no-loss system. That's me talking about potatoes. Shove your greed where it belongs ......... Volume??? How can the volume to sell exceed the volume to buy???? You mean you sold two grand and bought three. ???? Just like the kids from the "Masha and the Bear" cartoon!!! MT shows ticks but not volume, that is, it can only measure population density per square inch. No more than that. It will show excess volume at 3,000 trades at 10 bucks, even if someone wants to make one trade in the opposite direction for lakhs, but due to lack of supply will do it for the same amount but once. And that's not to mention those who enter the trade on the market.
Now let's move on to the first grade of high school from kindergarten. We read the book Memoirs of a Stock Speculator (Edwin Lefebvre) where it is written in black and white that loss is a prerequisite for gain, and more simply, sometimes you need to lose a bit to gain a big sum. So these very market makers lose so that we can take a jackpot. The market should be watched and not left to the mercy of robots. How can we criticize those who do our dirty work for us? Respect and respect.
And I'm tired of telling you to read a primer. I have two chapters in my book devoted to it. I think there is no need to say that the trend appears when the liquidity decreases. But here, liquidity is the difference between supply and demand, or in other words, an abrupt decrease in volumes. And there will always be buyers. And even those skeptics who are about the franc (by the way, made a good score, but I think they will have to sue the brokerage company, they do not want to pay). The market is the market. They have to pay their salaries and repay their loans, etc.. And they will buy what they need for any money.
I have not read it. A loser is a loser. As for the volumes Lefebvre could have read more carefully, he has a detailed description of the tracking of supply and demand.
What's the point of talking to the deaf-blind, go play mt))))
Didn't read it. A loss is a loss. And as for the volumes, you could have read Lefebvre more carefully, he has a detailed description of tracking supply and demand.
What's the point of talking to the deaf-blind, go play mt))))