searching for holy-grail.. is this theory true?

DionysusToast said:
The difference is, I do this before the event.

You can use the speculative model (90% of actual trading) to determine areas where there are lines in the sand where speculative traders will act in a certain way.

These are specific places where you believe price will do a certain thing with good probability & with good cause. Whilst not being perfect because you never know with certainty, you do know where you will be wrong.

Knowing where you are wrong enables you to control your downside and get into positions where the upside looks better than the downside.

Without worrying about what the 10% are doing.
Click to expand...

yes but it's all supply and demand ;)
 
cablemonster said:
as Toast said every single price move can be explained by the catch all term 'supply and demand'. It may as well be up/down pull/push green/red. it's all about the why and the why is not simply 'supply and demand'.
Click to expand...

A valid point!

What happens is that people term supply/demand with a broad brush stroke. They may associate supply with price going down for example, but what about supply when price moves up? Now it gets confusing. There is 1 unit of supply and 1 unit of demand in every transaction.

Next we have the assumption that demand means "wanting to own", then you associate price movement to this need/want. Not wise, and not helpful.

There are many more assumptions that could be used as examples.

None of this helps if we can't detect the DNA that underpins the "supply/demand".

So, no comprehension of this DNA will mean that any further discussion or academic studies are of little use to us mere mortals.

Price movement/liquidity/direction has to suit "someone" all of the time (no one does something for nothing), but not everyone all of the time.
 
Joules MM1 said:
beautiful .....so few appreciate the art of herding
Click to expand...

Studies of humans show we're not very different from many animals in terms of herding. In an emergency, most humans will follow another human simply because he was near, moved first and is moving in a certain direction. This happens irrespective of whether this initial person is heading the right way or down a dead end. Those simple factors can attract quite a following in a short time.
 
Shakone said:
Studies of humans show we're not very different from many animals in terms of herding. In an emergency, most humans will follow another human simply because he was near, moved first and is moving in a certain direction. This happens irrespective of whether this initial person is heading the right way or down a dead end. Those simple factors can attract quite a following in a short time.
Click to expand...

yep, that's great ......can you show me that on a chart?
 
tar said:
Agree same thinking , great post .

Smart money doesn't give a sh** about such semantic discussions , they even don't get engaged into discussion boards at all , trading forums is a place to start and learn but not a place to master the markets and make real money - sincere comment - .
Click to expand...

I don't know tar... I've heard raging arguments over rolling book hand-overs about the semantics of open positions that lasted a good two hours and threatened international relations.

Humans love to be right. I never gave a shat.
 
random12345 said:
I don't know tar... I've heard raging arguments over rolling book hand-overs about the semantics of open positions that lasted a good two hours and threatened international relations.

Humans love to be right. I never gave a shat.
Click to expand...

I already knew it, but it took me posting up to halfway through this thread
to remember none of this matters really.

Its all about conflicting belief structures.
Everyone here who argues their corner does so
because their belief structure is the foundation of their approach.
While it can be interesting, and some may even say beneficial
to understand how other participants think, and what their belief
structures are, it is largely personal.

Something as simple as a semi random entry at a high volume
point early in a session with exit being based on run if right,
or GTFO if wrong can work - thats what my automation does.
Granted it isn't precise or particularly efficient.
That wasn't the aim - a robust approach was.
How robust is it in reality - holding up fine,
ask me in 10 years for the definitive answer...:LOL:

Point is, none of that has anything to do with much mentioned in this thread.
I'm certainly not suggesting that is the best way, or would
suit everyone, it patently wouldn't.
In fact I am constantly searching for greater efficiency myself...

I spose thats what it all boils down to, developing a belief structure
that works on a personal level, suits your way of thinking
and is psychologically tradeable in terms of precision,
efficiency and drawdown.
Thats all it is really.
Which is why everyone has massively different viewpoints and opinions.
 
Liquid validity said:
I already knew it, but it took me posting up to halfway through this thread
to remember none of this matters really.

Its all about conflicting belief structures.
Everyone here who argues their corner does so
because their belief structure is the foundation of their approach.
While it can be interesting, and some may even say beneficial
to understand how other participants think, and what their belief
structures are, it is largely personal.

Something as simple as a semi random entry at a high volume
point early in a session with exit being based on run if right,
or GTFO if wrong can work - thats what my automation does.
Granted it isn't precise or particularly efficient.
That wasn't the aim - a robust approach was.
How robust is it in reality - holding up fine,
ask me in 10 years for the definitive answer...:LOL:

Point is, none of that has anything to do with much mentioned in this thread.
I'm certainly not suggesting that is the best way, or would
suit everyone, it patently wouldn't.
In fact I am constantly searching for greater efficiency myself...

I spose thats what it all boils down to, developing a belief structure
that works on a personal level, suits your way of thinking
and is psychologically tradeable in terms of precision,
efficiency and drawdown.
Thats all it is really.
Which is why everyone has massively different viewpoints and opinions.
Click to expand...

I disagree and this is why:

Its all about conflicting belief structures.
Everyone here who argues their corner does so
because their belief structure is the foundation of their approach.
While it can be interesting, and some may even say beneficial
to understand how other participants think, and what their belief
structures are, it is largely personal.

Something as simple as a semi random entry at a high volume
point early in a session with exit being based on run if right,
or GTFO if wrong can work - thats what my automation does.
Granted it isn't precise or particularly efficient.
That wasn't the aim - a robust approach was.
How robust is it in reality - holding up fine,
ask me in 10 years for the definitive answer...:LOL:

Point is, none of that has anything to do with much mentioned in this thread.
I'm certainly not suggesting that is the best way, or would
suit everyone, it patently wouldn't.
In fact I am constantly searching for greater efficiency myself...

I spose thats what it all boils down to, developing a belief structure
that works on a personal level, suits your way of thinking
and is psychologically tradeable in terms of precision,
efficiency and drawdown.
Thats all it is really.
Which is why everyone has massively different viewpoints and opinions
 
counter_violent said:
I disagree and this is why:

Its all about conflicting belief structures.
Everyone here who argues their corner does so********snip******** tradeable in terms of precision,
efficiency and drawdown.
Thats all it is really.
Which is why everyone has massively different viewpoints and opinions
Click to expand...

:LOL: fkin trust you, I walked into that one


Roflcopter.gif
 
bump this thread.

ok..suppose a theory where a guy enter a position in the market with 100,000 lot size. what it would takes for his position to make money? suppose the belief ive seen so far..is that..someone have to loss huge lots of money to him in order for his position make profit..

but then if hes the only one enter the market with such huge lot size, what would happen to the market price? but he cant lose so much money either.. because maybe nobody is betting the opposite of the same lot size against him? (that takes the money away from him)
 
cointoss said:
bump this thread.

ok..suppose a theory where a guy enter a position in the market with 100,000 lot size. what it would takes for his position to make money? suppose the belief ive seen so far..is that..someone have to loss huge lots of money to him in order for his position make profit..

but then if hes the only one enter the market with such huge lot size, what would happen to the market price? but he cant lose so much money either.. because maybe nobody is betting the opposite of the same lot size against him? (that takes the money away from him)
Click to expand...

Coudl you re-write that in a way that's a little clearer to understand what you're trying to say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Russ Allen
  • Article
Equities Options What Are My Options?
Replies
0
Views
4K
T2W Bot
T2W Bot
K
Holy Grail!!!
Replies
10
Views
2K
Mr Squirrel
Mr Squirrel
london88
In search of the "Holy Grail"?
Replies
9
Views
2K
forexsys2
F
T
help with hedging currency risk example
Replies
10
Views
3K
gerryg
G
S
Forex Holy Grail Is Within
Replies
3
Views
4K
fxgun
fxgun
Top