Classical thechanalysis doesn't work any more. What works, maybe quantum? - page 18
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
>> Facts?
>> Apolojis?
The facts?
Excerpt from the wiki:
"In 2002, a Paris court even found George Soros guilty of obtaining confidential information for profit and sentenced him to a €2.2 million fine. According to the court, the millionaire made around $2 million on shares in the French bank Societe thanks to this information. "
It's about Soros. There's a lot of other information, too.
When I say dishonest methods, I am not only referring to insider trading, but also, for example, forcing rumours on the media.
Excerpt from the wiki:
"In 2002, a Paris court even found George Soros guilty of obtaining confidential information for profit and sentenced him to a €2.2 million fine. According to the court, the millionaire made around $2 million on the shares of the French bank Societe thanks to this information. "
It's about Soros. There's a lot of other information, too.
When I say dishonest methods, I am not just referring to insider trading, but also, for example, forcing rumours on the media.
Thanks for confirming my point about punishability. I can give more examples, sometimes anecdotal ones. Stockbroker Rene Rivkin inadvertently became the owner of insider information, decided to make a little money, as a result he was in jail for 9 months on weekdays, and on weekends he was released home, because he was old and sick.
These are isolated cases, and each person gets hit in the head, so that neither he, nor crowds of the same around him want it afterwards. Soros got more in fines than he made, plus court scofflaws, is he going to mess with that?
>> Apolojis?
Alaverdy: wake up finally, reread my post and apologise for the vodka and glue, and for the mithrophanous, too.
Thank you for confirming my point about punishability. I can give more examples, sometimes anecdotal ones. Stockbroker Rene Rivkin inadvertently became in possession of insider information and decided to make a bit of money, as a result he spent 9 months in jail on weekdays and was released home on weekends, because he was old and sick.
These are isolated cases, and each person gets hit in the head, so that neither he, nor the crowds around him want it afterwards. Soros got more in fines than he made, plus court scofflaws, is he going to mess with that?
The example I gave was not about punishability, but about the use of insider information. The use of insider information is difficult to prove and therefore rarely punishable. And spreading profitable rumours may be even more effective than using insider information, but it is not a more honest way of course.
Alaverdy: wake up finally, reread my post and apologise for the vodka and glue, and for the mithrofans, too.
You are clearly on the wrong side of the tracks.
If you made the TS, and it's draining, it's your fault, not the indicators used in the TS and not the TA. But because you are stupid and ignorant and aggressive, you will blame not your own retardedness in building your stupid TS, but the indicators and TA in general.
If you want to be treated well, learn common courtesy. And then the proper understanding of the rest will kick in.
My example was not about punishability, but about the use of insider information. The use of insider information is difficult to prove and therefore rarely punishable. And spreading profitable rumours can be even more effective than using insider information.
No need to be modest, this was an excellent example of punishment for what has been done. The use of insider trading has been successfully investigated. It is even more successfully prevented when certain groups of people who could potentially have access to insider information (not that they actually had it) about a particular company are prohibited from touching that company's shares. It is a standard requirement for employees of major investment companies that neither they nor their close relatives can invest in shares of individual companies, only in funds.
The inevitability and severity of punishment is a good constraint.
If you have made a TS and it is losing, then you are to blame, not the indicators used in the TS and not the TA. But because you are stupid and aggressively ignorant, you will blame not your own retardedness in building your stupid TS, but the indicators and the TA in general.
... But if he does not lose, but earns, then the TA is so good, and I'm an idiot anyway.
This is the logic of the locker again and again - "locks are a profitable strategy, you just don't know how to use them".
And the fact that profit as well as loss while using TA is just an accident - it does not come to mind.
... But if it's not losing, but earning, then TA is so good, and I'm still a moron.
This is the logic of the locksmith again and again - "locks are a profitable strategy, you just don't know how to use them".
And the fact that profits as well as losses when using TA are just a fluke - it does not occur to me.
And the fact that you are posting to a person who uses this "non-working" TA and has had no other source of income since 2004 than to use this "non-working" TA on the stock exchange - does it not occur to you?
No, I may have overreacted about my mind.))) You got up with the wrong hemisphere, the one responsible for logic.
There are many analysis tools, methods, etc. which are expressed in TA indicators. They only show what is put into them. Mytrofanushka comes, takes his favorite indicators from this mass and rivets his TS. HE DOES IT HIMSELF. And after his stupid TS lost his deposit, he claims that the TA is to blame. If we assume that for him the TA is one and the same, then in this case, we can blame only his TA, his ability to use it and not TA in general or classical in particular.
Don't talk about locks here!))) I'm already tired of this locker sect in other threads.
... But if it's not losing, but earning, then TA is so good, and I'm still a moron.
This is the logic of the locksmith again and again - "locks are a profitable strategy, you just don't know how to use them".
And the fact that profits as well as losses when using TA are just a fluke - it does not come to mind.
TA is not a thing in itself, its work has its reasons in the market structure. The reason is that most participants profit and loss depend on price changes. Like it or not, the deposit remembers the entry point and the change of balance repeats the change of prices, which influences the decision. The second is that traders act stereotypically due to similar trading methods, risk management, trading regulations, etc. These 2 points give rise to TA methods. It is just that each market has specifics related to different composition of the participant, peculiarities of instruments and common methods of their use. Therefore the effective TA methods are different. I do not know what the author means by classical, it is possible that they do not work today for FX. But TA itself will work as long as traders don't know the future, but they bet on it.