Classical thechanalysis doesn't work any more. What works, maybe quantum? - page 8
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
So all robots are counter-trending?
The movement starts from a mismatch between supply and demand,
As long as there's a mismatch, there'll be a trend.
trading on the trend, you only reduce the speed of the movement but for your share of the money and
When supply and demand finally equalise and there is a reverse bias, that's when the trend ends.
The trader or bot entering the trade too late may add too much to the money box and thus miss the equilibrium point.
This is what I am talking about. The speed of price changes is such that you need a lightning-fast reaction at any time of the day or night. Classical analysis is mostly suitable for sluggish trading. Where there are trends and predictability. And it is good to use it to explain price behaviour in the past. I, as an investor, am interested in future profits, not lost profits in the past.
It's not clear. If you are an investor, why do you need a lightning fast response?
Any robot is written to make a profit, and profit means slowing down fluctuations or in other words reducing the imbalance between supply and demand. Once you open an order you take the action of reducing supply and demand
(or the opposite of an imbalance but if you increase the imbalance you incur a loss)
only the action to reduce imbalance brings profit.
So any robot that makes a profit will reduce market fluctuations.
It was not my idea that the laws of supply and demand do not work on financial markets and the system is not brought into equilibrium, so what unbalances it is quite profitable for speculators .
And it fits perfectly with the existing approaches in technical analysis. Like "trend-following",
you are only reducing the speed of the trend by your share of the money and when the supply and demand finally equalizes, then the trend is over.
but when the supply and demand finally equalize and there is a reverse bias, that's when the trend will end.
This is fundamentally wrong. If you go with the trend, you speed up the movement, not slow it down.
You are creating additional demand and shifting this imaginary equilibrium point.
It was not my idea that the laws of supply and demand do not work in the financial markets for a long time and the system is not brought into equilibrium, i.e. whatever unbalances it is quite profitable for speculators.
And it fits perfectly with the existing approaches in technical analysis. Such as "bucking the trend",
>> I am not talking about the laws but simple arithmetic. To buy 100 lots, you need someone who agrees to sell these 100 lots at this price.
And if no one else wants to trade at that price the market maker moves it.
And what I mean is the TA is not outdated, it is only supplemented with consideration of bots, but people will do it anyway,
And since people are the psychology of the TA as expressed in the rules of market behavior, the psychology of the crowd works here.
Everything is driven by stochastic resonance, i.e. noise
Why don't you ask Mathemata if the market is like noise? He seems to know more about this than anyone else.
The movement starts from a mismatch between supply and demand,
as long as there's a mismatch, there'll be a trend.
and when the supply and demand finally collapses, the market is going to go down.
When the supply and demand finally equalize and the divergence appears, that's when the trend is over.
The upward price movement starts when there are more buyers than sellers, or more precisely, when their combined purchasing power is higher.
Now they are joined by us and a few more buyers. So the strength of the buyers has increased, but according to your theory the movement should weaken?
No, it's not like that. The up-trend dies when there are no buyers left, i.e. everyone who wanted to buy has already bought and the new higher price
is no longer attractive to them. Some of these buyers want to lock in their profits and are closing their positions now becoming sellers.
And some of the old sellers stayed at higher levels, those who were not taken out by the buyers, moving the price by the up-trend.
That's about it.
By the way, robots are created by people, traders, and they have to trade based on their algorithm.
And if you consider that there are a lot of algorithms and robots, the market would not die without protein traders.
But that is a separate topic.
This is fundamentally wrong, entering on a trend you are accelerating the movement, not slowing it down.
You are creating additional demand and shifting that imaginary equilibrium point.
+1
Why don't you ask Mathemata if the market is like noise? He seems to know more about this than anyone else.
I mean, noise amplifies the underlying signal