FOREX - Trends, Forecasts and Implications 2015(continued) - page 1642
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 should, Fedya, you should)))
It is clear that I need to use levels. The thing is that these levels do not give a clear picture! And here they have both - fins and futures - I cannot wait to catch them! But I'm still like a blind kitten - my eyes have not opened yet)) That's all right. We've all run under the table before.
I see. Well, then, good health to you!
The effect of the number of stops on the trader's psyche:
This is how myths and stereotypes are shattered. Everyone is selling and it's growing.
I asked you to think about the question "who's selling?" You wrote, "Who cares if it's the devil?" I suggest you think about that question again. There are two answers - meat and cattle.
Now the next question is who is the active side of the deal in this case and who is the passive side. Why the price, contrary to what you see, goes up and how is this even possible(1). Hint - remember the ACA, the "action-result" section.
More questions to think about - when the price "shoots out", who is the active party, where is his initial position, what happens to the price next, who moves it, how and by whom a directed movement is supported (2), what happens to the volumes and OM (3). Write out the scenario, as if you have a lot of dough and you are moving the market, and we are the meat and you want to cheat us out of our money. How you are going to gain a position, how you are going to guide and support the movement, how you are going to lock in profits, how you are going to reverse. Think about whether you need a stop and for what the fuck, maybe you would rather buy (sell) an option.
You can post it here and we will discuss it together.
1. There are no sellers, so it goes up.
2. No one is moving it, no one is supporting it. It is going up because there are no 'sellers' to stop the price. But there may be lots of "sellers" who are just about to fall, but their orders are easily "eaten up".
3. Anything at all. You can only look at the volume after the fact, when you see the volume and look at the consequence.
Again a blind man talking to a deaf man.
Did you read my post carefully? Did you look at the questions carefully? Don't make a big deal out of it. Answer all of them in order and without omissions. Explain yesterday's scenario from the point of view of the big man and how you think he will act next. Answer why the price was moving up. You wanted to think with your head, so put your thoughts in the public eye.
The way I understand it is that all trades are overlapped by market makers, so there is always a balance between buyers and sellers,
No, it is not. MM should not be involved in all transactions, that is not his job. Its job is to meet the requirements of the regulator (the exchange). So as not to make it up yourself, it is better to read what typical conditions the regulator imposes on an MM-r and what preferences it has for that.
Sellers and buyers are always equal for only one reason - one side is ALWAYS passive (limit), the other is active (rnoon). It cannot be otherwise. If there are no active orders, the quotes will go and there will be no trades, if there are no limiters, then the active side can't sell or buy to anyone. But the active and passive side can be any market participant. MM intervenes only when there are NO limit orders on bids or asks. Or when he wants to stop the price, he puts his Limits BEFORE the clients' Limits. Or he puts his Limit orders in the market AFTER the order flow has dried up. The MM's role is often a passive one. His goal is to meet the regulator's requirements and at least not to take a loss. And for this the exchange pays a commission for each transaction and gives money for participation in the trading. So making money on the movement is a side effect of his trading.
1. There are no vendors, so it goes up.
2. No one is moving it, no one is supporting it. It is going up because there are no "sellers" to stop the price. But there may be lots of "sellers" who are just about to fall, but their orders are easily "eaten up".
3. Anything at all. You can only look at the volume after the fact, when you see the volume and look at the consequence.
1. There are no vendors, so it goes up.
2. No one is moving it, no one is supporting it. It is going up because there are no "sellers" to stop the price. But there may be lots of "sellers" who are just about to fall, but their orders are easily "eaten up".
3. Anything at all. You can only look at the volume after the fact, when you see the volume and look at the consequence.
1 How does this fit in with the thesis that sellers and buyers are always equal?
2 If no one is moving or backing, how does it move at all and why is it often unable to break the level?
3 And if you think about it?
What happened yesterday?
I suggested you think about the question "who's selling?" You wrote, "Who cares if it's the devil!" I suggest you think about that question again. There are two answers - meat and cattle.
Now the next question is who is the active side of the deal in this case and who is the passive side. Why the price, contrary to what you see, goes up and how is this even possible. Hint - remember the VSA, the "action-result" section.
Market sellers sell to market maker buyers, on their bid bids in the cup. Buyers need to buy cheaper, so the lower the price in the cup, the more advantageous position the buyer takes. Correspondingly, Bid is the worst price for the buyer. But it is more profitable for the market seller, as he needs to sell at a higher price. As volume is purchased at the upper Bid, he must jump to the better Bid below.