Any strategy works as long as only one investor knows about it - page 4

New comment
 
denis_orlov:

It's a funny paradox:

Figuratively speaking, the market is like a fantastic pendulum,

It's more like a scale, a scale that is interconnected. And when some forces (figuratively) try to bend one side of the scales in their favour. Immediately other forces intervene, which does not benefit, and strongly influence the other side of the scales, for their own interests. But everything has an inertia and the rapid extinguishing of movements requires more powerful efforts that push movements in the other direction. This is what one-third of the forces try to play on. And as all the scales are interconnected (the movement of one affects the movement of another), it is not immediately clear where the legs grow. And often the one who knows the greatest number of forces and their interests wins. And successful traders use technical analysis and forecasting methods not to predict where the price will go, but to calculate the consequences of known forces' efforts.
 
Thank you very much for your feedback: both those who supported and those who gave constructive criticism.

I will reply to most of the comments:

>And of course you are here to share it (your indicator (trading system)) with us in confidence...

No, I'm not going to share my strategies. I am not going to buy anything. I am interested in the subject of technical analysis in general.

The analysis analyzes the market behavior. I suggest to consider the contrary: the influence of thechanalysis on the market behavior.


>By this logic, investor1 and investor2 are smart and the rest are "the crowd". Somehow, that doesn't make much sense...
Exactly. When thechanalysis was invented, those who used it made money at the expense of everyone else. Thechanalysis predicts the "social" aspects of price movements - as a result, instead of a "normal" development there was a "smart" trader who used thechanalysis and who bought BEFORE others started buying and made money at the expense of them.


>I think so. If most sell, prices go down, if most buy, prices go up. Conclusion, the more investors sell at the same time, the more likely it is that prices will actually go down.
I think this is a common misconception.

The reason is that in trading by indicators if someone profits, someone else loses. And these losses are at the expense of those people who use well-known indicators in large quantities. The "smartest" - a certain large bank - will create its own unique indicator that will work in the direction of the known indicator, but a little earlier - the bank will buy cheaper than everyone else and sell more expensive than everyone else - it will sell when everyone else will buy. This is described in clause 7.

>So all this information, when passed on to another one, becomes useless for trading
To a certain extent, yes. A popular trading system is useless.



MetaDriver: Any simple profitable strategy probably (though not necessarily) remains so, until the amount of money invested in transactions based on this strategy is able to cause a noticeable (easily computable) market response. After that its days are numbered.

I totally agree. Thanks for your support.



>Actually, if you think about it... Market fluctuations are determined by big players (various funds, etc.). They make large trades and this imbalances the market, which seeks to compensate for the imbalance and arrive at an equilibrium state. The question is whether all private investors in the world (even assuming they use the same strategy) can make adjustments to the market with their trades commensurate with the influence of the big players...

The issue is that the big players are the best at the analysis and the strategies that are popular with private investors. I don't think the big players are trading at a loss given their clear advantage in connection speed, software and hardware.



>Yeah, got to the concept of "market impact" ... Strategies are more likely to stop working because markets are becoming more efficient.
Yes, that's the "market impact" - it's about the fact that if a strategy is Known and Profitable, the amount of money invested in it will increase dramatically, moving the price. Points 1-6 show how the market becomes efficient. By the way - analyzed the market with artificial intelligence software - the correlation is clear - the more liquid the market is, the more efficient it is and the harder it is to make money from it. Predicting the price of NOVATEK shares is much easier than that of Gazprom, while the EUR/USD pair is the hardest to predict. It is close to saturation.


>Efficiency of entry will be reduced if someone else has similar information (i.e. you have the same assumptions about future price movement) and is trying to profit from it. If the information is available only to you - the efficiency will not decrease.

I fully support it. Last sentence = topic of the thread.



Sta2066:>If you make an order "Everybody should learn the wave theory" with one and the same textbook and use it only in the market, the same 5% would be profitable. Besides, they will be the same people who are on the plus side now with their different trading systems.
I agree 100%.

denis_orlov:
>Any strategy is just a temporary illusion of understanding the chaos.
Beautifully put.
>The market takes its course anyway, the nature of its existence is that for every strategy sooner or later an anti-strategy triggers, because otherwise the pendulum would have calmed down but it doesn't.
Exactly so - p. 1-6 indicates the emergence of such an anti-strategy.


>goga: It's more like scales, scales that are interconnected.
>goga: It's an interesting metaphor.
 
NeoNeuro:

Dickfix ?
 
Look at the order book. It is the volume that is currently on the market that is able to move the market. Satisfy the demand/supply for this volume - the market moves in your direction. What do indicators have to do with it? Although many people look at the makdi, but it does not mean that everyone has the same TS on them, which allows you to enter at the same time intervals. Rather everything is smeared by time, some enter earlier, some later (when filters are confirmed) and some are not in the mood and don't trade today) That's what I think...
 
NeoNeuro:

....I don't think the big players are trading at a loss....

Does Jerome Kerwel sound familiar to you?
 
Mischek:
Dickfix ?

Yeah, but it's not a fix, it's "knows".

for the sake of argument where is the proof?

ZS: have the grailers become so shabby that they don't even have demostats anymore?

 
Mischek:
Dickfix ?
I don't think so, it doesn't look like it. The smell is different.
 
lukas1:

Well, let's look at how such a situation occurs in the current market. What situation? The situation is that every trading client has a MACD indicator. Well, people are trading on the MACD. And the market seems to react to these operations.

EURUSD 5 min MACD indicator with standard values of 12, 26, 9:


If it is not difficult, please share this IACD....

_____________

And on the subject, I must say that there are so many indicators and strategies that they are bound to balance themselves out, assuming that forex works in this way, taking at least a small share of the market. By and large, technical analysis tools are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is called the "market overweight"! And it is due to what it is formed: an indicator, insider information, or established patterns - it is important! And here I completely agree with the author of the theme - the loss of "preponderance" reduces efficiency!

 
NeoNeuro:

The reason is that in indicator trading, if someone is making money, someone is losing money. And these losses come at the expense of those people who use known indicators en masse. "The smartest" - a certain big bank - will create its own unique indicator, which will work in the direction of the known indicator, but a little earlier - the bank will buy the cheapest of all and sell the most expensive of all - sell when everyone will buy. This is described in point 7
Even an unknown indicator will show entry at approximately the same place as the known one.
 
ZZZEROXXX:
Even an unknown indicator, will show an entry at about the same place as a known one.

How interesting, your indicators show inputs.... Even unknown ones.

1234567
New comment
Reason: