How strong movements are born - page 12
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
Maybe that's what happens with bollinger, I don't know. But I need targets (TP and SL) and they are executed with high probability according to my channels (which are calculated differently). And at any given time I see future targets with the frequency of execution I want (depends on the wavelength).
I'll say it again, no more. If you understand, good, if not, good riddance. In principle, your pictures are no different from the bollinger. You may be very clever in counting your lines, but in principle you get the same thing.
a) There is no need to intuit anything. b) The price alone is not enough. c) There are two opposite different ways to "earn" on sharp movements.
... Strong movements are not really about volume or activity...
Maybe, but then with what? I'm looking for answers too. If it was clear to me, would I be writing.
God be with you. I only responded to your questions on the indicators as part of the thread and as a courtesy.
You just don't understand. If there is nothing interesting in the thread, then a sabbuk with his pictures will come along, or something like that will happen.
There are two opposing different ways of "making money" from sharp moves.
Explain.
===
I assume that deposits are cracking on such throws after all.
Perhaps, but then with what? I'm looking for answers, too. If everything was clear to me - would I have written.
Svinozavr correctly wrote above - anything can happen. Depends on very many factors, including the market. Sharp movements are black swans and thick tails of distributions. And these are largely random events.
Explain.
===
I assume deposits are cracking on such throws after all.
way:
1). Somehow "guess" the traffic and ride it from start to finish. Many people want to do this and you can't blame them for that. Very risky activity, the result is appropriate. In fact, it is "trend" trading.
2). Somehow "guess" the movement and get out of the market. Then enter and calmly try to pick up what is left of the risky guys. This is essentially "channel" trading. But your "channels" don't allow you to play such a game, which is why I think they are wrong.
Well, why not? I mean, the author's making a claim.
I somehow didn't notice him pedalling on this.
There you go. Exactly. That's what I said at the very beginning, that strong movements are not really related to volumes or activity. But there's zero reaction.
Well... if there is movement, then activity (and in the stock market, volume as well) is present. But that doesn't mean that if they are present, there is necessarily movement. I.e. activity, volume is a necessary but not sufficient condition for movement. Although... there is an anecdote about MCs and low volumes.
And it wasn't about the movement itself - it's somehow easier))), but about its birth (i.e. conception, not birth)). It's a bit of a mystery. An intimate thing. The "intimate" knowledge that after rest there will be movement - obvious by the wording - gives nothing for this study. Volatility is an almost stationary process, but that doesn't stick here. (I repeat myself already).
With these channels there is one fundamental wrongness. I repeat. Unlike what is usually drawn, the channel is narrower on strong moves (the channel is a probabilistic forecast of price behaviour).
Well, maybe - honestly, I don't have much desire to poke around in it. Although I have not noticed anything particularly strange there. But let it be. Let's not go deeper into it, OK?
In principle, your pictures are no different from the bollinger. You may be very clever in counting your lines, but in principle you get the same thing.
Here is a comparison of DCMV indicator and bollinger with the same periods - nothing in common. In yellow is the bollinger. And it expands on a strong movement, but with a delay. In addition, the price falls out of the channel. In other words, they are fundamentally different.
===
I want to answer right away, I do not know how the Bollinger is built and works - for sure, it is cool, but it does not interest me.
way:
1). Somehow "guess" a move and ride it from start to finish. A lot of people want that and you can't blame them for that. It is a very risky action, and the result is corresponding. In fact, it is "trend" trading.
2). Somehow "guess" the movement and get out of the market. Then enter and calmly try to pick up what is left of the risky guys. This is essentially "channel" trading. But your "channels" don't allow you to play such a game, that's why I think they are wrong.
Guess or follow? That is the question. (That is the question.)
I, as you 'guess', 'follow' the latter. You seem to be too. I don't see a way to follow the signs of a nascent movement, as I simply don't know them, and therefore I follow the movement itself. I am not a seer to guess, nor am I a market maker to shape movements. Neither am I an insider. (Ha! Someday I'll tell you a story about how I lost half a mil of their money because of a sure-fire reliable insider.)
In short, "I'd like to know, but guessing is nauseating." (Sorry, Alexander Sergeyevich.