[Trader's Handbook] Draft articles, "out of pocket" discussions - page 28
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
Although the topic is called "trader's handbook...", in fact, everything still revolves only around forex.
PS.I wonder if there is such a second person with such knowledge. Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut
I agree, we should remove the sibilance.
I vote against removal.
If an alternative in the form of another sibling emerges, there is something to compare it with.
If not, there is something to build on.
Delete - ?
I vote against removal.
If an alternative in the form of another sibling emerges, there is something to compare it with.
If not, there is something to build on.
Delete - ?
I had a glimpse of this "guide"... What can I say... Calling it a handbook doesn't sound serious. It's more a set of thoughts that expresses the author's subjective view of the market. At least the part written by comrade hrenfx. I'm certainly not against the fact that someone wants to share his thoughts with others, but if the section is positioned as a guide, then everything should be strict, clear, well-reasoned.
Much is taken from the ceiling, with no indication of the source of information. For example, the classification on "alt-traders" and "clickers". Where did it come from? How can a broker classify a trader in this way if the broker has no idea if the trader trades by hand or by robot. The broker can only indirectly determine this by the frequency of trades and position holding time. There are well established definitions for these categories: scalper(a pipser) andpositioner. And the scalper may be "manual" and not just automatic. So why introduce your own classifications/concepts and pass them off as common? By the way, this is the first time I hear the term "clicker" (in terms of trading), despite the fact that I have been in the exchange environment for many years. Probably, the author uses this jargon in his narrow circle, but does it really belong in a reference book? And it is not clear why all of a sudden "the competition for clickers is high". The broker is interested in the one who makes a big turnover, and it makes no difference whether he is a clicker or a ***ker. And the biggest turnover is made by pipsari robots, not clickers.
One more thing that immediately caught my eye:
Why only 99%? Where is the other 1%? Then it's not an exchange, but a kitchen. Or it's not a limit.
But this is all minor matters. I am more surprised about something else. Although the theme is called "trader's guide ...", but in fact everything still revolves only around Forex. Of course, there are some references to exchanges, but it all reminds me of a phrase aptly said by someone here on the forum: "Forex traders gathered together to talk about the exchange market" :)
After all, all these ECN, aggregators / shmaggregators, etc. - this is essentially the same gondola, just with a more human face. You have to move away from this chaos, rather than strive for it. There are normal civilized and transparent markets with an abundance of various trading instruments, not just a casino of a few currencies. The metaquotes have even adapted everyone's favourite metatrader for this purpose. But as you can see, the more you feed a forexist, the more you look at forex )).
There is not one author there. And the authors' view is minimally subjective. How can it be subjective in elementary (one-syllable), not ephemeral, things? If it is not true (false) then that is another matter. Point out specific bottlenecks, in your view. One thing has been pointed out, but is it possible to fit everything written into a "ah, it's all subjective bullshit" template...?
If you have something else to point out, be sure to do so, it will be useful for everyone. And I'll be grateful to you. Excuse me, we're not trying to measure pussy here, we're discussing things publicly and correcting them.
Yes, you can add something of your own, I think it will be useful to everyone.
Yes, I may have been a bit hasty in my remarks, I apologise. As the saying goes: "It's not a question of breaking, it's not building.) The information is undoubtedly useful for many, no need to delete. I just imagine a beginner, who will read all this for a moment, and what a mess he will have in his head, and maybe even a horror frozen in his eyes at the thought, what he will have to go through on the market. Although much of this he won't need, if he starts trading on the exchange, bypassing the OTC market with its intricacies. Well, it seems to me, that the border between the exchange and OTC markets has become too blurred, everything is chaotic, and a person who is not in the know, may get confused or misunderstood. I may be wrong, though. However, if the guide is not designed for complete dummies, then all in principle, those who need it - figure it out.
As for adding on their own, in principle, can try ... As thoughts come up.
I mean, it seemed to me that the line between the stock market and the OTC market was too blurred, it was chaotic and chaotic, and a person who is not in the know could get confused or misunderstood. I may be wrong, though. However, if the guide is not designed for complete dummies, then everything is fine in principle, whoever needs it - will understand.
I had a glimpse of this "guide"... What can I say... Calling it a handbook doesn't sound serious. It's more a set of thoughts that expresses the author's subjective view of the market. At least the part written by comrade hrenfx. I'm certainly not against the fact that someone wants to share his thoughts with others, but if the section is positioned as a guide, then everything should be strict, clear, well-reasoned.
Much is taken from the ceiling, with no indication of the source of information. For example, the classification on "alt-traders" and "clickers". Where did it come from? How can a broker classify a trader in this way if he has no idea if the trader trades by hand or by robot. The broker can only indirectly determine this by the frequency of trades and position holding time. There are well established definitions for these categories: scalper(a pipser) andpositioner. And the scalper may be "manual" and not just automatic. So why introduce your own classifications/concepts and pass them off as common? By the way, this is the first time I hear the term "clicker" (in terms of trading), despite the fact that I have been in the exchange environment for many years. Probably, the author uses this jargon in his narrow circle, but does it really belong in a reference book? And it is not clear why all of a sudden "the competition for clickers is high". The broker is interested in the one who makes a big turnover, and it makes no difference whether he is a clicker or a ***ker. And the biggest turnover is made by pipsari robots, not clickers.
One more thing that immediately caught my eye:
Why only 99%? Where is the other 1%? Then it's not an exchange, but a kitchen. Or it's not a limit.
But this is all minor matters. I am more surprised about something else. Although the theme is called "trader's guide ...", but in fact everything still revolves only around Forex. Of course, there are some references to exchanges, but it all reminds me of a phrase aptly said by someone here on the forum: "Forex traders gathered together to talk about the exchange market" :)
After all, all these ECN, aggregators / shmaggregators, etc. - this is essentially the same gondola, just with a more human face. You have to move away from this chaos, rather than strive for it. There are normal civilized and transparent markets with an abundance of various trading instruments, not just a casino of a few currencies. The metaquotes have even adapted everyone's favourite metatrader for this purpose. But as you can see, the more you feed a forexist, the more he looks at forex)).
Such information and material thathrenfx has given out will never be written by anyone! I am not sure that such people as he is exist, more than sure all that is written is in practice, and if before he had no name for any essence and it exists, it does not mean that it should remain nameless.
PS.I wonder if there is such a second person with such knowledge. Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut