Know News/time; WAIT for Edge Entries, MPLC Normalization, Exits & TP's..
- Joined Jan 2017 | Status: Member | 533 Posts
Humans are naturally hardwired to avoid and detest uncertainty.
90% of traders lose money! True or False? 247 replies
Why you lose money and will always lose 31 replies
Did we Lose any Brokers? Are we going to Lose a few? 1 reply
'Try to Lose Money' Experiment 64 replies
DislikedI would like to clear up a misconception as far as the forex market and forex trading is concerned. It differs to trading stocks. When trading stocks you are trading one commodity or entity. Thus the difference between buying or selling may be relevant as often selling is more beneficial due to panic/fear factor. However when it comes to buying/selling forex, there is generally no difference or advantage to whether you buy or sell. Taking GBPJPY as an example, JPY can be very strong one day and very weak the next thus buying the pair can be just...Ignored
Disliked{quote} You nailed it bro...that is the primary reason why I have been saying all along. Price in Spot FX is not everything. The anatomy of Price in itself is a variable defined by two more variables. Any strategy (pick any one) on time series (with OHLC) will not work consistently because of it's competing and contradicting nature of intrinsic and extrinsic forces that "govern" the market structure. Anyone who thinks this SpotFX market is not Governed via strict policies and controls is a complete noob. I will say this one more time.... In Spot...Ignored
Disliked{quote} " Scalping at microstructure level via consistent application of a "Constant" and Universal tactical technique " Sounds like a good topic by itself in the Trading discussion forum. Anyone trading like that?Ignored
Disliked{quote} Sure but I am sure folks will repent my participation here. Anyways, I will share my perspective on why Divergence between "two calculated result set" derived from indicator values will never work. Divergence between one constant and one variable will work but between two calculated values derived from one variable i.e. Price can never work. It's a mathematical impossibility because both values will change on every pip (or tick since now I am into futures). Clearly, you are not the abstract or absolute guy so in my opinion, you are NOT trading...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Maybe you are too caught up in the technicalities of the mathematical definition (calculated result set derived , constant, variables, stuff like that). The definition of deviate is to turn aside or deviate, as from a path, practice, or plan. I suppose instead of RSI Divergence I could call this method "RSI Second-Value-Of-RSI-At-Second-High-Not-Equal-To-First-Price-High-Value-When-You-Would-Expect-It-To-Be-Based-On-Previous-Price-High-Condition"...but it just doesn't roll of the tongue as easily, ya know?! You are 100% correct that the...Ignored
These two actually came from CrucialPoint and validated as part of my own research. I really do not want to sound like a follower of CrucialPoint as I have only read about 20% of his posts (mostly his journal entries).
Disliked{quote} You are successful not because of Divergence setup or bollinger band or rsi or your deep understanding of it. You are successful because of your yrs of screentime watching one thing over and over and over and over again...…Ignored
Disliked{quote} Here's something else you might disagree to: Any strategy that involves more than 3 indicators (i.e. 3 moving average is considered one) will always fail Any strategy that takes EACH AND EVERY Buy and Sell Signal will always failIgnored
Disliked{quote} While I do agree with the concept of each of these, I just don't like to deal in absolutes ("Will always fail"). You do not have to be successful to say something doesn't work, but you DO have to be successful to say that something does!Ignored
Disliked{quote} While the years of screentime and watching patterns over and over and over allowed me to recognize those patterns that occurred consistently given the same conditions, the divergence setup was simply a result of that. When I taught my daughter to trade, she was successful using this pattern, not because of years of screentime (she had maybe a weeks worth), but because she learned to recognize the pattern and took advantage of the result of the pattern. There is nothing magical about trading. You don't get bonus points for being able to calculate...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Semantics I guess.... Looking at the splash and moving towards the tree does not get you the fish you want to catch.... It only gets you to narrow down your focus from the wide array from infinite possibilities involved and turns your attention into using all you have learnt over the years on how to catch that fish.... splash is experience and it is not what made you actually catch the fish. Here's something else you might disagree to: Any strategy that involves more than 3 indicators (i.e. 3 moving average is considered one) will always...Ignored
Disliked{quote} I disagree with both points 1 and 2 and if this CruucialPoiint, whoever they are, paid me enough money, I will disprove them in practicality because they are not looking at the whole picture when they make such claims. 1st point is easy though: If you have multiple indicators that more or less confirm each other, you might not have gone in using only one indicator but the more indicators that say the same thing, the better.Ignored
Disliked{quote} 99% of over 450 strategies I tested using OHLC data have proved this point..... they all work for a year or two but non worked more than 3+ yrs taking every buy/sell signalIgnored
Disliked{quote} Here's something else you might disagree to: Any strategy that involves more than 3 indicators (i.e. 3 moving average is considered one) will always fail Any strategy that takes EACH AND EVERY Buy and Sell Signal will always failIgnored
Quoting VEEFXDislikedthey all work for a year or two but non worked more than 3+ yrs taking every buy/sell signalIgnored