The axioms of financial market analysis (or the whole truth about the right and wrong use of indicators) - page 14
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
I'd say it's all bollocks not worthy of attention.)
I will say that this is all nonsense not worthy of attention)
The basic model can be taken as a wave to predict the future and further supported by divergence and convergence.
The base model can be taken as a wave to predict the future and further supported by divergence and convergence.
And assume this conclusion.
Convergence is something like that, but I have not found such a composition in my terminal.
Below is the divergence:
And I took them and moved in Photoshop indicators up on the chart (by the way they can also be placed upwards in the terminal) and what do we see?
And what we see is a miraculous transformation of one into the other.
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.
If you think about it, it is so - in any transaction there is the opposite side, and if one buys the currency, the other side sells it respectively. We have at this point, the equilibrium of supply and demand.) I think some light should be shed on the axiom ))
So I reason further and you correct if something is wrong ))) But in addition to the transaction point, there are points below/above this point. Sellers above buyers below. We have a depth of price window. Here we may detect some imbalance - for example, total volume of sellers is greater than total volume of buyers. Thus we have the excess of supply over demand. The most real example of the recent events is the franc. Buyers simply were not available at certain price points. And after the Swiss bank stopped holding the level, these points became available. But again, if you translate it into your language - some bought, others sold - the sales volume was equal to the volume of purchases. Therefore the price should have remained at the same level?
Describe what you want to say in more detail in order to shed light on the big picture and make a complete logical chain.
I haven't read Lefebvre (a must-read), but I don't understand your invective! If I understand you correctly you are saying that at any given time demand is balanced by supply. And the price should simply stand still! But it does move...
If you think about it, it is so - in any transaction there is the opposite side, and if one buys the currency, the other side sells it respectively. We have at this point, the equilibrium of supply and demand.) I think some light should be shed on the axiom ))
So I reason further and you correct if something is wrong ))) But in addition to the transaction point, there are points below/above this point. Sellers above buyers below. We have a depth of price window. Here we may detect some imbalance - for example, total volume of sellers is greater than total volume of buyers. Thus we have the excess of supply over demand. The most real example of the recent events is the franc. Buyers simply were not available at certain price points. And after the Swiss bank stopped holding the level, these points became available. But again, if you translate it into your language - some bought, others sold - the sales volume was equal to the volume of purchases. Therefore the price should have remained at the same level?
Describe what you meant to say in more detail to shed light on the big picture and put together a complete logical chain.
Nah, he just said that in every transaction there are two sides - if someone sold, someone bought from them, and that is 100% true. This axiom has nothing to do with supply and demand.
After all, originally we were talking about the volumes reflected in MT. But really if think about it I do not know what exactly these same volumes reflect in MT? For example, for the last minute there were 2 deals - one to buy with 1 lot and one to sell with 2 lots. Respectively, there was the opposite side - 1 lot to sell and 2 lots to buy. What will be reflected in MT? 3 or 6? Or something else?
We were talking about the tumbler and the volume of supply and demand in the market at the current moment in time. This is a little bit different.
That's why I didn't understand what the author was trying to say :)
So I gather he hasn't given the potato much thought himself))))
Nah, he just said that in every transaction there are two sides - if someone sold, then someone bought from him, and that is 100% true. This axiom has nothing to do with supply and demand. Demand, for example, arises at a certain price at a certain time. What happens. At that price, there are many people who want to buy and far fewer who want to sell at that price. An imbalance emerges. Some people want to buy potatoes for two rubles, others who wanted to sell have sold, and there are no more willing sellers at two, there are willing sellers at 2.50, some buyers agree and buy at this price, the price has risen, etc.
Somehow there is still something missing in your words. You consider only two sides, but what about MM, it also balances this imbalance to a certain extent.
It provides liquidity, so that those who want to sell can always sell, and those who want to buy - buy. Even if at that moment there are not equal numbers of those who want to sell and buy at the same price.
This alignment is undertaken by MM, of course not infinitely. As a consequence, he adjusts the price. Roughly speaking, he "trades" with us (sellers and buyers), in accordance with his policy,
and in accordance with the resulting supply/demand he sets the rate. Where it is seen openly that someone wanted to buy for 2, but they were offered 2.5. They both were satisfied at one time and it would be later in the price with an internal analysis inside MM that there was an imbalance and according to this imbalance the price would be set by MM itself, by the way, also at once. + MM regulates his brainchild, he can inflate the price relative to the real supply/demand level.