How can you trust the analysis after that? - 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
Exactly. Several people here have already drawn the right ones, but there is no unambiguity, and everyone is right. And *** with it (uniqueness), let it each have their own within the framework of TS. So I doubt that there are statistically significant on the workout. If only we did not know (at least I do not know, I do not know about those who express it here) when approaching a level the price will break through it or bounce. It doesn't matter how you trade. So, there is no reliable statistical estimate of how much it will break or bounce.
It's like a beauty contest to see who can draw better and whose picture will come true ))))
The timetable for drawing should not be
---
It should be like this.
---
That would be closer to the subject
The timetable for drawing should not be
---
It should be like this.
---
That would be closer to the subject.
But move to a larger timeframe and many bodies will become shadows.
But move to a larger timeframe and many bodies become shadows.
And the profits are different.
It all depends on the targetThe timetable for drawing should not be
---
It should be like this.
---
That would be closer to the subject
Any lines are drawn from volumes, not shadows
Take a hammer type candle. Most of the volume was where the shadow of the candle was. And the price could bounce back to the opening price at the last second of the hour. That's why the shadow matters.
But this is not correct in my opinion too. It's better to draw only the extremums for a certain time. And this will be the max level of Bid and min level of Ask.
All lines are drawn in volumes, not in shadows
It is impossible to tell unambiguously from the volumes what is going on. If the volume is large, it is a set of positions for further moves, or an exit from a large deal in parts, or many small deals of many buyers/sellers.
Accordingly, there are as many interpretations of this line.
In one case this line is important for a major player, and it will be held until a certain moment (we trade from it), in this case it has at least some probable significance in the future. In the other case it is just a pro-trade, and the line is useless as a future reference point.Technical analysis, especially in the part of drawing lines, is a purely subjective analysis. Each trader uses his own ways of line drawing and their interpretation is different. The only thing that unites them all is paying attention to local minimums and maximums. And to draw by shadows or by open/close is up to someone's taste. The price does not care how your line is drawn, it does not know anything about it. But other traders draw the line with their own ways and everyone looks at their line in their terminals, and when the crowd starts to trade each for his own line and a major player joins, it does not matter how you draw this line in any case, there will be some error.
For me, the line is just an area that needs attention and that's all.
P.S. Many people draw rectangles instead of lines, marking some area where they think reversal or rebound is possible. When scalpers see large volume they set their limits before this volume and the price may not reach the large volume and reverse earlier and if you have a line drawn on this volume, the price will not touch it. A big player took his volume at the last moment and the price skipped it, it will also skip your line. I think you need to look at the complex: mark the zone, monitor the behavior of price in this zone (the so-called price action) and trading volume.
Technical analysis, especially in the part of drawing lines, is a purely subjective analysis. Each trader uses his or her own ways of drawing lines, and they all interpret them differently. The only thing that unites them all is paying attention to local minimums and maximums. And to draw by shadows or by open/close is up to someone's taste. The price does not care how your line is drawn, it does not know anything about it. But other traders draw the line with their own ways and everyone looks at their line in their terminals, and when the crowd starts to trade each for his own line and a major player joins, it does not matter how you draw this line in any case, there will be some error.
For me, the line is just an area that needs attention and that's all.
P.S. Many people draw rectangles instead of lines, marking some area where they think reversal or rebound is possible. When scalpers see large volume they set their limits before this volume and the price may not reach the large volume and reverse earlier and if you have a line drawn on this volume, the price will not touch it. A big player took his volume at the last moment and the price skipped it, it will also skip your line. I think you need to look at the complex: mark the zone, monitor the behavior of price in this zone (the so-called price action) and trading volume.
Technical analysis, especially in the part of drawing lines, is a purely subjective analysis. Each trader uses his own ways of line drawing and they all interpret them differently. The only thing that unites them all is paying attention to local minimums and maximums. And to draw by shadows or by open/close is up to someone's taste. The price does not care how your line is drawn, it does not know anything about it. But other traders draw the line with their own ways and everyone looks at their lines in their terminals, and when the crowd starts to trade each for his own line and a major player joins, it does not matter how you draw this line in any case, there will be some error.
For me, the line is just an area that needs attention and that's all.
P.S. Many people draw rectangles instead of lines, marking some area where they think reversal or rebound is possible. When scalpers see large volume they set their limits before this volume and the price may not reach the large volume and reverse earlier and if you have a line drawn on this volume, the price will not touch it. A big player took his volume at the last moment and the price skipped it, it will also skip your line. I think you need to look at the complex: mark the zone, watch the price behaviour in that zone (called price action) and trading volume.
That's a good commentary. I can only add that whatever methodology a trader uses, it is important that existing levels are not redrawn when drawing new levels. If this happens, it should be assumed that the level calculated above is incorrect. Thus, the method used does not work.
I can say for myself, I use a calculation method that can only increase the number of levels calculated or decrease them. Instead of changing the arrangement of levels.
The number of levels displayed on the chart depends on how many times price has historically bounced off that price. The fewer times it happened, the more levels will be on the chart.
Conversely, if price has historically bounced relatively many times from this level, there will not be many levels on the chart.
Not to mention that I don't build any levels by looking at the chart, believing that there must be a level where price will stop.
All that is visible is the algorithm's calculation. It can also be subjective, depending on the implementation of the code. But when the algorithm works with the conditions, it does not matter whether the trader likes this level or not, the level found simply corresponds to the conditions in the algorithm.
Good commentary. I can only add that whatever methodology a trader uses, it is important that existing levels are not redrawn when drawing new levels. If this happens, it should be assumed that the level calculated above is incorrect. Thus, the method used does not work.
I can say for myself, I use a calculation method that can only increase the number of levels calculated or decrease them. Instead of changing the arrangement of levels.
The number of levels displayed on the chart depends on how many times price has historically bounced off that price. The fewer times it happened, the more levels will be on the chart.
Conversely, if price has historically bounced relatively many times from this level, there will not be many levels on the chart.
Not to mention that I don't build any levels by looking at the chart, believing that there must be a level where price will stop.
All that is visible is the algorithm's calculation. It can also be subjective, depending on the implementation of the code. But when the algorithm works with conditions, it doesn't matter whether the trader likes this level or not, the level found simply matches the conditions in the algorithm.
1-Bounce is not the same as rebound. What about conflicts when the price many times "bounced" (though in fact you have not a rebound in its pure form, but rather a false breakout, without determining the depth of penetration) in one place from the line on the chart (for example, on the older foref at the level of 1.25, it has penetrated/bounced 5 times, and at the 1.3 - 2 times), that is a priority in the analysis. And if you take and change the digit of thef to the lower one, it could very easily turn out that there were 7 bounces on the level of 1.25 and 15 on the level of 1.3.
2-This is quite a maze of reasoning, just an addendum, although there are already enough confusion with the first point.
(This doesn't take into account that the same level piercings can be either from below or above, and both are accounted for. Also, the behaviour around these levels is ambiguous. The price may break the level from below, roll back to the level and then break it from above. But it may also break through from above, come back from below and chisel from the bottom. Or it may come from above and immediately hammer from above and vice versa. The fact that the price broke a level in the past does not mean it will break it in the future/present. Again because (I've already written) "consequently there are so many interpretations of this line. In one case this line is important for a big player and it will be held till a certain moment (we trade from it), in this case it has at least some probable meaning in the future. In the other case it is just a pro-trade, and the line is already useless for future reference."
Do you have statistics that the logic of your levels gives a 50/50 probability that if you bite the past, you are more likely to bite in the present/future? )