Any strategy works as long as only one investor knows about it - 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
It's a funny paradox:
Figuratively speaking, the market is like a fantastic pendulum that swings back and forth in several reference frames, but the moment of its return is never known. It already seems to be at its extreme point, but it keeps pulling higher and higher... Try to calculate its period! :) Try to attach it to a cuckoo clock. The cuckoo clock will go crazy and seven Fridays a week is your calendar.
Any strategy is only a temporary illusion of understanding chaos. The market takes its course anyway; the nature of its existence is that for every strategy, sooner or later an anti-strategy is triggered, because otherwise the pendulum might have calmed down, but it does not.
Perhaps 3 is MM?
In my opinion, the market has no strategy at all and our mistake is to look for a non-existent strategy and inevitably the law of 97%/3% is obeyed in response, reflecting the ratio of losers to winners in the market. I wonder why the obvious 50/50 law shifts so dramatically in favour of the market? Who can answer that? So the market is not a two-parameter eagle/retail type system. How many degrees of freedom does it have then? How to determine them? The simplest figurative calculation shows: P=0.5^2= 0.25^2= 0.0625, i.e. if we obtain the simultaneous coincidence of four events, we should have approximately 6% success. What are these events? We can assume 1 is the correct entry, 2 is the correct exit, 3 ?, 4 ? Perhaps 3 is the MM?
In my opinion, the market has no strategy at all, and our mistake ...
"yours"... Or do you represent a group of people, whose opinion you are voicing? If it is indeed so, and you represent a group, then imagine which group you are speaking for. Otherwise, if you don't represent any group of people, the "our" voiced is very disrespectful to forum members who don't think so. If something doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean the same thing doesn't make sense to others. Consider it a warning for disrespect. Actually, there is knowledge in those words. You say the words, but you do not understand the meaning of words, the meaning of sentences. Hence "your" lack of understanding of OVERALL processes. You can see, but you are not able to see. "Our" is "your"... You elevate yourself in your own eyes, but you don't notice the big picture. That's where it all starts. I have said, I am saying, and I will continue to say: give your child Forex, and he will invent all the rules without mathematics, and he will learn to play... But a child has to be "clean-da-bright", whose brain has not yet been polluted with lies, when the substitution of the concept "ours - yours" takes place. It is possible, of course, that you are provoking and drawing in this way, but those who really understand what I am saying are unlikely to succumb to such provocations, because it's all red-tape. But the impression is that you are deceiving yourself and not "someone".
....I have said, am saying and will continue to say: give a child forex - ...
"Yours..."
It's institute training when all reports, research papers are taught to write in the plural.
Like we considered, we did, our importance, etc.
This gives weight to the words and puts moral pressure on the reader, like he is the only fool who can't understand what so many people have already figured out.
On the other hand, I-canyon in a scientific paper you agree something would look ridiculous. Everyone will think What kind of upstart thinks he is.
So the scientific community hides behind a virtual group of people, creating a class of virtual one-note objects.
But of course Yusuf is one person. So one has to perceive by filtering.
And after that, it's left with... ...you know what I'm talking about.
"Yours"... Or do you represent a group of people whose opinions you are voicing? If that is indeed the case and you do represent a group, then present exactly what group you are expressing an opinion for. Otherwise, if you don't represent any group of people, the "our" voiced is very disrespectful to forum members who don't think so. If something doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean the same thing doesn't make sense to others. Consider it a warning for disrespect. Actually, there is knowledge in those words. You say the words, but you do not understand the meaning of words, the meaning of sentences. Hence "your" lack of understanding of OVERALL processes. You can see, but you are not able to see. "Our" is "your"... You elevate yourself in your own eyes, but you don't notice the big picture. That's where it all starts. I have said, I am saying, and I will continue to say: give your child Forex, and he will invent all the rules without mathematics, and he will learn to play... But a child has to be "clean-da-bright", whose brain has not yet been polluted with lies, when the substitution of the concept "ours - yours" takes place. It is possible, of course, that you are provoking and drawing in this way, but those who really understand what I am saying are unlikely to succumb to such provocations, because it's all red-tape. But the impression is that you are deceiving yourself and not "someone".
It's institute training to write in the plural in all reports, research papers.
Like we considered, we did, our importance, etc.
This gives weight to the words and puts moral pressure on the reader, like he is the only fool who can't understand what so many people have already figured out.
On the other hand, I-canyon in a scientific paper you agree something would look ridiculous. Everyone will think What kind of upstart thinks he is.
So the scientific community hides behind a virtual group of people, creating a class of virtual one-note objects.
But of course Yusuf is one person. So one has to perceive by filtering.
And after that, it's left with... ...you know what I'm talking about.
What the world is built on! Human vice! And the main one is pride - the idea that you're better than anyone else! Hence, the casinos, stock exchanges, gambling banks and other systems with zero potential-that is, they do not produce anything but use your ego for their own purposes. And 97% remains in the system.
As casinos say, they do not win but take a loan, and sooner or later they return it)).
P.S. - At the nais exchange every stock is accompanied by a specialist and he enters with his own money when there is no counter bid i.e. almost always against the market and he is always in the black.