Market theory - page 2
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
From 26 10 14 to 11 01 15: The market is competitive and has returned to equilibrium after a sharp disturbance. The price is in a permissible corridor, albeit below the optimal value.
18 01 15 to 05 04 15: The market is monopolistic and highly profitable.
Inventing a bicycle is not a difficult thing to do.
Your theory will leave the market with no spread and no clients. However, forex exists no matter what.
Study the market rate so that your conclusions coincide with practice.
Here is the construction of the market:
Buyers at the top, sellers at the bottom - price in blue. Move the price up/down in your mind and you will understand everything without any formulas. And then you can make up formulas, they are more than elementary. The equations should show that the price will always move in the middle, i.e. the price moves at buyer/seller volume parity (the average price of both, if you like) and is equally disadvantageous to both.
As an example - open a lock and look at the breakout. The price will stand in the centre of the lock at the beginning. If you continue to wait without opening or closing, the price will change its position. The answer to the question "why?" does not take you long and hits your brain instantly.
And here are the formulas.....
Last 3 weeks from 15 03 15 to 01 05 15: Classical market structure as the price is still within the allowed channel, but the big players can intervene and push it into the monopoly area, otherwise it will bounce back to the market area from which it has not yet emerged, but is near the edge of the monopoly area.
Inventing a bicycle is not a difficult thing to do.
Your theory will leave the market with no spread and no clients. However, forex exists no matter what.
Study the market rate so that your conclusions coincide with practice.
Here is the construction of the market:
Buyers at the top, sellers at the bottom - price in blue. Move the price up/down in your mind and you will understand everything without any formulas. And then you can make up formulas, they are more than elementary. The equations should show that the price will always move in the middle, i.e. the price moves at buyer/seller volume parity (the average price of both, if you like) and is equally disadvantageous to both.
As an example - open a lock and look at the breakout. The price will stand in the centre of the lock at the beginning. If you continue to wait without opening or closing, the price will change its position. The answer to the question "why?" does not take long, and comes to your mind instantly.
1. But note that the corridor based on this method almost completely overlapped with the tumbler, where I wasn't looking. Are you really against another method of market analysis? The glass is not really the main part of the analysis, although it plays an essential role.
2. Yes, it turns out that the profit is commensurate with the spread, sometimes a little larger. It cannot be helped, that's how the Forex market is. Forex turnover exceeds 5 trillion and profits are measured in millions. The difference is a million times that, roughly, corresponds to 5 pips of four digits, h, etc..
3 I confess I have done the analysis so far without taking into account the spread, but there is such a possibility, I will do it later - they are present in the formulas, but have not been involved right now. I'm sure the profit will greatly decrease, but the nature of the market will not change. That's why many TS are killed by the spread.
1. I don't claim to be the final authority on this, but note that the corridor built using this methodology almost, if not completely, matched the tumbler where I wasn't looking. Are you really against another method of market analysis? The glass is not really the main part of the analysis, although it plays a significant role in it.
Yusuf, with all due respect, give up the glass. At your age the only thing you need is a shot glass.
Judging by the numbers on his graphs, the ones on the left. And if those numbers are consistent with what he says.
1. .... Note that the corridor built by this methodology almost, if not completely, matched the tumbler, where I wasn't looking. Do you really mind that another method of market analysis has emerged? The glass is not really the main part of the analysis, although it plays a significant role in it.
If you know, the glass is so big, it looks more like a cistern :-)
Z.U. I mustn't forget to ask developers to display such a depth of the glass (Level2) 6 figures :-))
Yusuf not afraid to drown? :-)
Now let's look at the whole period for the last 52 weeks (almost 1 calendar year): In general, the market remained competitive, theoretically not providing individual participants with profit opportunities over 7 points (four digits), but, as we see, in practice it is possible, due to creation of local monopoly periods by large securities and/or funds, to achieve profit up to +32 basis points, though at the expense of incurred losses of -22 points by others or by the same market participants. The price levels in the market are over a wide range, although optimal market levels for the US and Eurozone economies are in the 1.4135 (Copt) and 1.4533 (Cr) bands. However, dealing with temporary difficulties in the economy, the pair had to break through the "ironclad" lower level of 1.1153, where it soon returned.
1. Price1 is the first break-even point; - you sell so cheaply that you only make enough profit to cover variable and fixed costs.
2. C2 is the second break-even point; - you sell so expensive that there is only enough profit to cover variable and fixed costs.
Look - the usual definition of a break-even point is a pair of volume-price. You have only price. So you have some kind of special concept of "break-even point".
Secondly, everyone has different fixed and variable costs, yet your break-even point price is fixed for the whole market. have you introduced the concept of "variable and fixed costs of the WHOLE market" ?
Well even from your charts it follows that you could sell below the C1 price and still be in profit. What kind of "break-even point" does this turn out to be ?