# Help me with Bulls vs Bears

#### Heyhi

##### Junior member
17 0
I understand Bulls vs Bears is buyers versus sellers but I don't understand when they say the Bulls were in charge. For every buyer there's a seller if there's a hundred buyers there is a hundred sellers so how can one be in charge or dominant? If there is one buyer vs10 sellers but the buyer will only buy AT \$10 but the sellers want \$11 and they give in to the one buyer is that what makes the candle green? There is one seller selling a \$10 and hundred buyers and they accept the \$10 cost wouldn't that one seller be in charge?

#### tomorton

##### Legendary member
8,083 1,194
Look at it from the buy side alone -
Prices rise when a buyer bids more than another buyer and the bid is accepted.
If no buyers are bidding higher, prices don't change.
If buyers are bidding lower and these buys are being accepted, prices fall.

#### Brumby

##### Established member
593 138
I understand Bulls vs Bears is buyers versus sellers but I don't understand when they say the Bulls were in charge. For every buyer there's a seller if there's a hundred buyers there is a hundred sellers so how can one be in charge or dominant? If there is one buyer vs10 sellers but the buyer will only buy AT \$10 but the sellers want \$11 and they give in to the one buyer is that what makes the candle green? There is one seller selling a \$10 and hundred buyers and they accept the \$10 cost wouldn't that one seller be in charge?
Your question is about how to assess the outcome of an event whereas the example used is describing the condition of an event. It is like attempting to fit a square into a round hole as they are not alike. The missing piece is a reference point in the form of unit of time be it in minute, hourly or daily, etc. Say if prices open on the low and close on the high after an hour of trading we can say that bulls ended up in charge at the end of that period. Likewise if the opposite happened then the bears ended up in charge. If at the end of that hour both opening and closing price ended up the same then neither managed to take charge.

#### timsk

##### Legendary member
7,311 2,098
Hi Heydi,
Welcome to T2W. In addition to Tom and Brumby's comments, I would add the following. . .
I understand Bulls vs Bears is buyers versus sellers but I don't understand when they say the Bulls were in charge. For every buyer there's a seller if there's a hundred buyers there is a hundred sellers so how can one be in charge or dominant?
It may help if you think more in terms of the number of shares or contracts being traded - as opposed to the number of people trading them. The latter isn't that important is so far as it doesn't much matter if you have ten buyers of 100 contracts matched to ten sellers of 100 contracts or, say, one buyer of 1000 contracts matched to ten sellers of 100 contracts. Both scenarios net out equally, even though in the second one there are ten times as many sellers as there are buyers. There are caveats to this in that there are times when the number of players and the size(s) of their transactions become significant but, in the context of this thread, I suggest you don't worry about that too much for now.

If there is one buyer vs 10 sellers but the buyer will only buy AT \$10 but the sellers want \$11 and they give in to the one buyer is that what makes the candle green? There is one seller selling a \$10 and hundred buyers and they accept the \$10 cost wouldn't that one seller be in charge?
A candle (or bar etc.) turns green when both the bid and ask prices are rising and turns red when both the bid and ask prices are falling. One of the simplest ways to determine whether the bulls or the bears are in charge is to draw trend lines on a chart. By way of example, attached below is a daily chart of Bitcoin which I've marked up to show who is/was in control at any one time. As of today, the bulls are back in control as they are prepared to pay ever higher prices, evidenced by the predominantly green candles closing above a rising trend line.
Tim.

Last edited:

##### Legendary member
6,485 1,403
I understand Bulls vs Bears is buyers versus sellers but I don't understand when they say the Bulls were in charge. For every buyer there's a seller if there's a hundred buyers there is a hundred sellers so how can one be in charge or dominant?
No, that's incorrect.

If there is one buyer vs10 sellers but the buyer will only buy AT \$10 but the sellers want \$11 and they give in to the one buyer is that what makes the candle green? There is one seller selling a \$10 and hundred buyers and they accept the \$10 cost wouldn't that one seller be in charge?
Again, your understanding isn't fully developed. There are generally different participants, the 'quality' participants, otherwise known as professionals, the smart money and the strong hands, and the 'quantity' participants otherwise known as retail or 'the public'.

#### Quantt

##### Established member
944 59
I understand Bulls vs Bears is buyers versus sellers but I don't understand when they say the Bulls were in charge. For every buyer there's a seller if there's a hundred buyers there is a hundred sellers so how can one be in charge or dominant? If there is one buyer vs10 sellers but the buyer will only buy AT \$10 but the sellers want \$11 and they give in to the one buyer is that what makes the candle green? There is one seller selling a \$10 and hundred buyers and they accept the \$10 cost wouldn't that one seller be in charge?
You know what, you are actually might not be wrong

The others did a great job already to explain what is the accepted concept, but if you think deeper/more philosophical, nobody knows exactly who was in charge unless you have the complete story who did exactly what and why... Maybe the bear bought to cover short or as a hedge, maybe the bull sold to take a bit of profit, maybe one whale did all the buying/selling and everybody else was just dumping, etc...

#### tomorton

##### Legendary member
8,083 1,194
No, that's incorrect.

Again, your understanding isn't fully developed. There are generally different participants, the 'quality' participants, otherwise known as professionals, the smart money and the strong hands, and the 'quantity' participants otherwise known as retail or 'the public'.

Surprising. Where do you get this from?

#### Brumby

##### Established member
593 138
if you think deeper/more philosophical, nobody knows exactly who was in charge unless you have the complete story who did exactly what and why... Maybe the bear bought to cover short or as a hedge, maybe the bull sold to take a bit of profit, maybe one whale did all the buying/selling and everybody else was just dumping, etc...
Expanding your point "philosophically", does it matter knowing "who" are the buyers or sellers as opposed to the final outcome in a contest between buyers and seller? If you believe the identity matters then I would ask you defend that reasoning. My overriding approach would be to keep it simple relative to my objective and that is simply to assist in determining likely direction relative to my trade plan. In other words, knowing who is in charge is meaningless absent a purpose.

If volume distribution is essential in your trade approach then that is a market profile conversation.

#### Heyhi

##### Junior member
17 0
Thank you guys for the help I will be posting more questions hopefully you guys can help me out

#### Quantt

##### Established member
944 59
Expanding your point "philosophically", does it matter knowing "who" are the buyers or sellers as opposed to the final outcome in a contest between buyers and seller? If you believe the identity matters then I would ask you defend that reasoning. My overriding approach would be to keep it simple relative to my objective and that is simply to assist in determining likely direction relative to my trade plan. In other words, knowing who is in charge is meaningless absent a purpose.

If volume distribution is essential in your trade approach then that is a market profile conversation.
For me personally, it doesn’t matter, but I just can help it, when my mind starts to wonder, especially if I end up watching by mistake Jimmy Cramer screaming on TV about bulls and bears...

697 64

#### Kaeso

##### Established member
882 100
I understand Bulls vs Bears is buyers versus sellers but I don't understand when they say the Bulls were in charge. For every buyer there's a seller if there's a hundred buyers there is a hundred sellers so how can one be in charge or dominant? If there is one buyer vs10 sellers but the buyer will only buy AT \$10 but the sellers want \$11 and they give in to the one buyer is that what makes the candle green? There is one seller selling a \$10 and hundred buyers and they accept the \$10 cost wouldn't that one seller be in charge?
If you are struggling with such simple concepts there is no point making your own trading decisions. Seek help from professionals.