Simulate the situation. If 1,000 people were forced to trade amongst themselves, how would the graph behave? - page 15
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
You are scared, I am scared too, and many others will be scared- determined pattern is scary.
The next thing to do is to define the pattern - sorry. So that most people will feel sorry. So that all the greedy ones in this price range will gather together.
Then I think to consider the pattern-unclear, where no one understands.
And so on down the list, then formalize it all, code it, test it and voila the robot is ready.
And I'm not talking about me here. I'm not so scared anymore. I can explain what I see.
And I wasn't already talking about me here.
I wasn't talking about you either.
Then you can build logical chains from patterns: scary-not understandable-understandable-pity... etc.
These chains will build up into structures.
imagine such an experiment.
They decided to do a study. (1)They handed out $100 each to a thousand people. They set up their own broker (!!!!), installed an exchange terminal, and told everyone: "start trading".
And how does it end?
(1) The smart ones would immediately disappear with $100. So, on the basis of such an experiment we can clearly determine the % of fools. :) (they would then also contribute their dough, and the scam continued).
They would have been satisfied on both sides as long as there was a rift. You just have to get to the front of the line.
(1) The smart ones would immediately disappear with $100. Therefore, on the basis of such an experiment we can clearly determine the % of fools. :) (they would then also contribute their dough, and the scam continued)
The topic is purely hypothetical and with a purely technical approach with a psychological bias)
The smartest are likely to have placed their limiters on both sides and at different levels.
While the bounce is going on, they would be satisfied on both sides. You just need to get to the front of the line.
If the rate and the glass is formed by the actions of the players (and not taken as a constant from the outside), for example, they aren't just handed out 1K$, but they can trade on them only some green chips, forming the price of these chips
TO
with such limited total capital, the winning (least losing) strategy is "buy-and-hold". That is, the green chip market will stand up.
If the rate and the rate are formed by the actions of the players (and not taken as a constant from the outside), for example, they aren't just given $1K each, but they can trade only some green chips, forming the price of these chips
TO
with such limited total capital, the winning (least losing) strategy is "buy-and-hold". that is, the green chip market will stand up.
But someone's nerves will give out and they'll want to rip off a piece. If someone starts selling, it is possible that others will start selling as well.
If you stand at the bottom with your limits under a falling market, you can still end up with a piece.
Or you may not be so lucky.
But someone's nerve will give out and want to take a piece. If someone starts selling, perhaps others will start selling as well.
If you stand below with your limits under a falling market, you can finally get a piece.
Or you may not be so lucky.
trading, a zero-sum game and consider that the broker earns nothing.
That is, the total amount remains the same. At any given time, the total price of chips = the sum of capitals.
---
If there is only one set of chips, then at any fall of their price below the initial one, it is profitable to "buy and hold" them.
If there are at least two sets (i.e., adding blue to green) or more, the optimal buying criterion in a falling market will be more difficult. I can see some quadratic estimates, but I'm too lazy to count :-)