Trading against the crowd - is there an interested programmer in working together - page 3
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
65% on the buy means that 65% of the 100% crowd are still in the market with open positions (these are not closed positions or pending orders), and they are waiting for an opportune time to exit the market. To close the buy and get out of the market, you need to find those who will buy from them. And the more of them and the less of those who have entered to sell, the more the market goes down to find them the necessary amount of volume if the necessary volume is not found near the price where buyers have entered.
Then the only thing left to do is to trade.
65% on the buy side - means that either they want to buy, and not even at once, or they have a short position that needs to be bought to close. At the same time, the market is falling. What do you see as wrong with the crowd's behaviour? Why would you want to play against the crowd in this case?
Maybe I'm not explaining it right, maybe those professional analysts aren't explaining it well either, no,
maybe it's still - And we'll go north, and we'll go north. (Kipling. Mowgli).
You have bought - do you think your money was taken and converted into another currency? You just bought the right to sell later. This sale can take place in an hour or a year, the price movement has to convince someone to buy so that you can sell and record a profit or loss. When a large number of buyers come in at an expensive price then potential buyers can just wait for good prices. Here bids with high volumes will look for buying volumes at lower and unprofitable prices for the first buyers.
Why is it that 20 percent of the world's people have more money than the other 80 percent, why do 20 percent of top managers earn more than the other 80 percent? It may be Pareto's law, it may be something else, but it always has been and always will be, you want to earn and not to exist, you have to do what the elite minority does, and sometimes you have to do what the majority does.
65% are those who opened a buy position, i.e. entered the market by market order or a pending order is opened and held
Crowd, why do 20% of people in the world have the wealth of the remaining 80% of people, why do 20% of top managers earn more than the other 80%, it may be Pareto's law, maybe even more, but it always has been and always will be, you want to earn and not to exist you have to do what the elite minority does, taking into account that at times you also have to do what the majority does, for example at the beginning of the crisis when most get rid of unreasonably expensive assets.
What you are saying is demagoguery. Words that mean nothing and are not supported by anything.
If you want to get rich or be popular, you must do what the crowd wants or go along with it. Those who do not follow this principle do not survive. It is called competition.
What you are saying is demagoguery. Words that mean nothing and are not supported by anything.
If you want to get rich or popular, you must do what the crowd wants, or go along with it. Those who don't follow this principle don't survive. It is called - competition.
Yeah, well, did you bother to read the material I gave in the first post. I won't repeat the whole text, I'll just give you one paragraph: If everyone is buying, we like to sell, if most going to short we like to buy. And these words are backed up with examples of analysis based on real data from a major broker.
Yeah, well, did you bother to read the material I gave in the first post. I won't repeat the whole text, I'll just give you one paragraph: If everyone is buying, we like to sell, if most going to short we like to buy. And these words are confirmed with examples of analyses based on real data from a big broker.
Many things are written on the fence ) In general, it is clear, that it is much more difficult to think with one's own head. That's why a certain broker is certainly an unquestionable authority.
All further arguments about - against, crowds, standing to buy etc. do not stand up to any criticism.
There is also a lot written on the fence ) In general, it is understandably more difficult to think with one's head. That is why a certain broker is, of course, the unquestionable authority.
All further arguments about - against, crowds, standing to buy etc. do not stand up to scrutiny.
I am thinking with my head, but why have you stopped thinking like the majority, maybe you should ask the crowd and then draw conclusions.
All further arguments about - against, crowds, standing to buy etc. do not stand up to scrutiny.
How can you not understand such simple things? The aggregate position goes into deficit, which means the market maker makes money.
The crowd is 99% of the participants, but not 99% of the money.
So what's wrong with the crowd having buy positions in a falling market? Please explain. And how are you actually going to play against the crowd in this particular case?