Cesarnc's market talk, gossips, rumours & fun

no worries mate.. it is your way.. definitely..

I m just pointing on a technical side of the 4h and 1h divergence..

I'll post later 2 charts.. bb in 1h

It could also be possible a bailout for Greece over the week-end,...nobody knows, when it will be made public...this week,...next months,...never...
...the market seems crazy enough!

yes, you posted earlier, and we HAD a bearish divergence on 1h..
[Im not using CCI, but momentum, but it is the same.. all those are momentum oscillators]

Blue arrows are divergences on EUR 1h.. and surly, we hit the target mark.. [red arrow]

[Chart]

now.. apart of the low volume and "turkey day" in US... and end of the week.. I wouldn't be paying too much on lower TF from now on..

Here is What I am looking at..:

lets look at 4h chart..
a Potential 4h Bearish "Divergence" is in "MAKING".. And goes *back 8 days...
if somehow we turn next 4h candle above.. to the new high.. and close there, then 4H CCI would invalidate the whole divergence.. I know it is very suspicious and less likely, but let see.. all we need a close on CCI osc. above that light blue line...

However..

if we turn south, then 4h divergence is IN.. and I would be looking for projected targets down to 1.2720-1.2750 area..

not sure how we translate this to fundamental event.. but for now.. a 200p drop is priced in..

AND sorry forgot .. the most important thing on CCI to mention is.. CCI was, and still is above 100 line.. very bullish... unless changes.. it is still bullish..

[Chart]

swimming in money with both euro and geppy...

took some loss with ucad though. i shouldn't touch any commodity pair. lol

wanted to mention this yesterday.

cci divergence was there, but look at the consolidation zones. it's called shifting zones. bastards typically do that before they jack up the price, if the divergence was present at the top of the consolidation zone then it could have worked out, but not after they shift the zone.

glad to see that you were able to flip the trade.

Closing my last remain position In GU and GY ..

[Chart]

congrats bro. beautiful entry.

very nice day, very nice week........holding a core of S&P looking for 1430 and higher

got in an Oil trade too, and long copper

beautiful..
life is good mate..

sweet when it works out........had your gu trade in there too. ...just missed the gj at 131 (c'est lavie)

read this from D Kass (never put much faith in Kass though - a personal opinion for what that is worth)

Kass - 3 reasons to be suspicious of the magnitude of today's rally;

- low volume

- junk is flying

- bond prices not dropping

sure.. like in the Forrest.. hunting the beast..

You know what to look, not rushing.. and when setup is right /.. you pull the trigger..

i can tell some fishing stories few would believe..cross my heart. love the forest.

its a beautiful day

click on the video (turn up the sound - a bit)...........i know the guide...a friend


www.rivieresainte-marguerite.com

it's been an awesome week despite the thin market with the holiday. despite the winners, had couple of losses while picking the bottom though. i just need to be little more patient next time. have a great weekend people.

Great...

Im thinking on buying a boat this summer.. I'll see how it tuns out..

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1]
People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about current political issues, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

[source] ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Many biases in judgment and decision making have been demonstrated by research in psychology and behavioral economics. These are systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment.
Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[1]
Some are effects of information-processing rules, called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. These are called cognitive biases.[2][3]
Biases in judgment or decision-making can also result from motivation, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Some biases have a variety of cognitive ("cold") or motivational ("hot") explanations. Both effects can be present at the same time.[4][5]

There are also controversies about whether some of these biases count as truly irrational or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. An example is that, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. This kind of confirmation bias has been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[6]
The research on these biases overwhelmingly involves humans. However, some of the findings have appeared in animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has also been observed in rats, pigeons and monkeys

Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general. They arise as a replicable result to a specific condition: when confronted with a specific situation, the deviation from what is normatively expected can be characterized by:

Ambiguity effect – the tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown."[8]
Anchoring or focalism – the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
Attentional bias – the tendency to pay attention to emotionally dominant stimuli in one's environment and to neglect relevant data, when making judgments of a correlation or association.
Availability heuristic – the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are, or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.
Availability cascade – a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").
Backfire effect – when people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.[9]
Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.
Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect – the tendency to base judgments on specifics, ignoring general statistical information.[10]
Belief bias – an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.[11]
Bias blind spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[12]
Choice-supportive bias – the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.[13]
Clustering illusion – the tendency to over-expect small runs, streaks or clusters in large samples of random data
Confirmation bias – the tendency to search for or interpret information or memories in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[14]
Congruence bias – the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.
Conjunction fallacy – the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.[15]
Conservatism or regressive bias – tendency to underestimate high values and high likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies and overestimate low ones. Based on the observed evidence, estimates are not extreme enough[16][17][18]
Conservatism (Bayesian) – the tendency to revise belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence (estimates of conditional probabilities are conservative)[16][19][20]
Contrast effect – the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object.[21]
Curse of knowledge – when knowledge of a topic diminishes one's ability to think about it from a less-informed perspective.
Decoy effect – preferences change when there is a third option that is asymmetrically dominated
Denomination effect – the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).[22]
Distinction bias – the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[23]
Duration neglect – the neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value
Empathy gap – the tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.
Endowment effect – the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.[24]
Essentialism – categorizing people and things according to their essential nature, in spite of variations.[25]
Exaggerated expectation – based on the estimates, real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than our expectations (conditionally inverse of the conservatism bias).[16][26]
Experimenter's or expectation bias – the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[27]
False-consensus effect - the tendency of a person to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her.
Functional fixedness - limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used
Focusing effect – the tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.[28]
Forer effect or Barnum effect – the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests.
Framing effect – drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how or by whom that information is presented.
Frequency illusion – the illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly appears "everywhere" with improbable frequency (see also recency illusion).[29]
Gambler's fallacy – the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."
Hard-easy effect – Based on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is too conservative and not extreme enough[16][30][31][32]
Hindsight bias – sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable[33] at the time those events happened. Colloquially referred to as "Hindsight is 20/20".
Hostile media effect – the tendency to see a media report as being biased, owing to one's own strong partisan views.
Hyperbolic discounting – the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.[34]
Illusion of control – the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.[35]
Illusion of validity – when consistent but predictively weak data leads to confident predictions
Illusory correlation – inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.[36][37]
Impact bias – the tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.[38]
Information bias – the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[39]
Insensitivity to sample size – the tendency to under-expect variation in small samples
Irrational escalation – the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.
Just-world hypothesis – the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
Less-is-better effect – a preference reversal where a dominated smaller set is preferred to a larger set
Loss aversion – "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".[40] (see also Sunk cost effects and endowment effect).
Ludic fallacy - the misuse of games to model real-life situations.
Mere exposure effect – the tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.[41]
Money illusion – the tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.[42]
Moral credential effect – the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Negativity bias – the tendency to pay more attention and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information.
Neglect of probability – the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.[43]
Normalcy bias – the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Observer-expectancy effect – when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
Omission bias – the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).[44]
Optimism bias – the tendency to be over-optimistic, overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias).[45][46]
Ostrich effect – ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Outcome bias – the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Overconfidence effect – excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.[16][47][48][49]
Pareidolia – a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing non-existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Pessimism bias – the tendency for some people, especially those suffering from depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.
Planning fallacy – the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.[38]
Post-purchase rationalization – the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
Pro-innovation bias – the tendency to reflect a personal bias towards an invention/innovation, while often failing to identify limitations and weaknesses or address the possibility of failure.
Pseudocertainty effect – the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[50]
Reactance – the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology).
Reactive devaluation – devaluing proposals that are no longer hypothetical or purportedly originated with an adversary.
Recency bias – a cognitive bias that results from disproportionate salience attributed to recent stimuli or observations – the tendency to weigh recent events more than earlier events (see also peak-end rule, recency effect).
Recency illusion – the illusion that a phenomenon, typically a word or language usage, that one has just begun to notice is a recent innovation (see also frequency illusion).
Restraint bias – the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Rhyme as reason effect – rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous example being used in the O.J Simpson trial with the defenses use of the phrase "If the gloves don't fit then you must acquit."
Risk compensation / Peltzman effect – the tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
Selective perception – the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

[more..] => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

What a nice trade.
Entry after a M5 divergence and Exit at a pivotal.

EURUSD, M5, 2012 November 23

Post 40,179

Nice work there!

Psychology and behavioral science could make over 90% of all profits in some market environments when having an IQ 115 >.

...and what about ...neuropsychological events of successful trading?...