About profound advice like "follow the price!" - page 6
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
"Don't try to anticipate the market, follow the price!"
When you read that, it makes you feel like a sheep. It is so easy to follow the price and take profits, while you make some predictions and suffer losses. Can someone explain this principle?
I've always assumed that opening a position is based on some kind of prediction. Even if we open pending orders in both directions, it is also an assumption that the price will go further or return after breaking through the pending order.
So what do you mean?
You have practically answered your own question.
"Don't try to predict the market, follow the price!" - it's a concept of sheep breeding. Like all concepts, it sounds great, it's nice to hear, but you don't know how to implement it. Trying to find out what is meant by it, you will never get a specific answer, let alone something scientifically sound. The answer will always be the same conceptual stuff like "enter correctly", "exit on time", "don't catch extremums", "the trend will continue" etc. etc. like in a fairy tale without a beginning or an end. In general, there is not a single evidence that this concept has a formal layout of intelligible trading rules that can be easily implemented without elaboration of new concepts. In fact that is why neither you nor anyone else will be offered an answer in terms of trading rules (NOT new concepts). Agree, all you have read in response is either new concepts, albeit more specific, but still not rules, or "never mind". I'll second the latter.
I daresay that VWAP may be useless in forex due to its volume binding.
I have good results when it comes to manual trading.
You are absolutely right! In Forex there is no volume, because Forex is FOReign EXchange - in fact, the instant exchange of foreign currency, but we all trade within the DC, and no matter how you want to give a new quote in the terminal, the DC has to give ticks, the more often the currency exchange happens, the more often the price changes - ticks. The main thing is to correctly identify where the "volume fills" occur, and where there is a volume drop - in terms of MTS I cannot yet formally define the task, but in terms of manual trading I have good results.
You don't need much, 55% certainty is enough )
Stop dreaming, look and work, no one can teach you how to predict the market, I have been looking, finding, checking on the micro-real for a year now, and... and I'm looking again... :)
You are industrious, you know a lot, mind you, it's so easy, why do you have to look for something else? The tracks, themselves tell the whole story...))))
You are industrious, you know a lot, pay attention, it's so easy, why look for something else? The tracks, themselves tell it all...))))
I am not yet seeing, or maybe I am not able to search for a currency movement forecast with BA, I read your posts with attention
ZS: my prognosis for the eu goes to the region of 1.4330, then you need to look, although globally I expect 1.3970
You have practically answered your own question.
"Don't try to anticipate the market, follow the price!" is a sheep breeding concept. Like all concepts, it sounds great, it's nice to hear, but you don't know how to implement it. Trying to find out what is meant by it, you will never get a specific answer, let alone something scientifically sound. The answer will always be the same conceptual stuff like "enter correctly", "exit on time", "don't catch extremums", "the trend will continue" etc. etc. like in a fairy tale without a beginning or an end. In general, there is not a single evidence that this concept has a formal layout of intelligible trading rules, that can be easily implemented without elaboration of new concepts. In fact that is why neither you nor anyone else will be offered an answer in terms of trading rules (NOT new concepts). Agree, all you have read in response is either new concepts, albeit more specific, but still not rules, or "never mind". I'll second the latter.
Right. Catch extrema, don't put any stops, trade against the trend, average to the tomato. you are not a sheep :)))
You, industrious people, know a lot about a lot of things, and mind you, it's that simple, why else would you look for anything? The tracks, themselves tell the whole story...))))
I am superficially acquainted with wave theory. But I know that a correction most often has a 3-wave structure. Can you explain what were you guided by inferring a future move up in the DE interval that did not take place?
The question is not completely clear to me. I will answer what I understood. It is based on the statements of Prechter and K* that the ascending movement of 07.06.2010, as a correction, of the 2nd wave, is finished, and the descending movement, as a 3d wave, is developing. Approximately the same point of view, with some contradictions, is held by G.Neely Institute.
If, your question, refers to the local rise of 23.05.2011, it was visible, namely, at that moment, ended the formation of the wave pattern on the decline, and all options were associated with growth. My version, as a supporter of Prechter's position, was the movement in the form of a triple zig-zag, and it worked, but the price has chosen the movement in the impulse style, ie, drew 2-waves, not acceptable for a triple zig-zag or grow by 200 points more from projected. That's about it.
What exactly did not happen, I did not understand. My opinion on the wave models, I have expressed in detail in the branch "Club...." on this site.
Understand, the real traders on the waves, tend to work out the wave models (impulses, zig-zags, etc.), and "connect" them, these wave models, in a common wave structure, the wave ANALYSTS....)))) . I do not need to link local wave models into a common wave construction. It is enough to work it out and understand that there are no more variants to go down and all variants are directed upwards or vice versa. That is all.
P.S. A correction always has 3 basic waves, it is always a correction.
Before drawing conclusions one should understand correctly what he/she has read, i.e. have "primary education".
I do not understand the question completely. I shall respond to what I understood. The statements and graphics of Prechter and Co* are taken as the base, where it is said that the rising movement of 07.06.2010, as a correction, of the 2nd wave, is finished, and the descending movement, as a 3rd wave, is developing. Approximately the same point of view, with some contradictions, is held by G.Neely Institute.
If, your question, refers to the local rise of 23.05.2011, it was visible, namely, at that moment, ended the formation of the wave pattern on the decline, and all options were associated with growth. My version, as a supporter of Prechter's position, was the movement in the form of a triple zig-zag, and it worked, but the price has chosen the movement in the impulse style, ie, drew 2-waves, not acceptable for a triple zig-zag or grow by 200 points more from projected. That's about it.
What exactly did not happen, I did not understand. My opinion on the wave models, I have expressed in detail in the branch "Club...." on this site.
Understand, the real traders on the waves, tend to work out the wave models (impulses, zig-zags, etc.), and "connect" them, these wave models, in a common wave structure, the wave ANALYSTS....)))) . I do not need to link local wave models into a common wave construction. It is enough to work it out and understand that there are no more variants to go down and all variants are directed upwards or vice versa. That is all.
P.S. A correction always has 3 basic waves, it is always a correction.
Before drawing conclusions you should correctly understand what you've read, i.e. you should have a "basic training".
What does 23.05.2011 have to do with it, I'm commenting on the 15m chart you posted above, the date is 10.06. What is unclear here, I have specifically indicated the DE dotted red line.
Now I get it. Usually it is common to call a model by its name, in our case three, or by its full name, not by its abbreviated name, then everything would be clear. It is simple, I chose the variant of the wave pattern "three" and the price drew another figure. That is all.
Why, I have chosen "three" and not another model, B-wave is bigger than A-wave, it is a rare case for zig-zag, I have made a mistake with forecasting.
Now I get it. Usually it is common to call a model by its name, in our case three, or by its full name, not by its abbreviated name, then everything would be clear. It is simple, I chose the variant of the wave pattern "three" and the price drew another figure. That is all.
Why I chose the "three" and not another model is another question, but you are right, I made a mistake with the forecast.
Sorry, the DE section is the only one on the chart, there is no model name for it, you simply cannot make a mistake. So I do not understand the correction section, it means you should have expected a three-wave, and you planned a five-wave.