If technical analysis is pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.15923799]

Then how is it possible for someone to trade for a living?
I look around the net and see what others are thinking about a particular currency pair or stock, and they're almost never right.

[Anonymous No.15923806]

>>15923799
The market, by design, is inevitably right.90+% of the time.

[Anonymous No.15923840]

>>15923799
just do the opposite then

[Anonymous No.15923940]

Luck

[Anonymous No.15923984]

>>15923799
99% of all traders lose money in the long run. Unless you are a mega fucking Moby Dick whale that can move the market on whim or have solid insider info BEFORE everyone else, you are fucked.

Just like a casino, the longer they play the more they lose

[Anonymous No.15924008]

>>15923840
It's not that simple. People make guesses all over the place, the losses come over time as even with random shots you have trading fees and manipulation.

To make money consistently daytrading you really need enough capital to influence the market or to have bots. There's a reason individual traders all sell their advice even though they're suppposedly consistently making good trades.

Just stick to swing trading over months or using charts to know a good entry point for holding

[Anonymous No.15924050]

>>15923799
High-level traders don't use TA, retard.

They develop knowledge in a specific area (e.g. internal Saudi Politics), and trade based on their superior knowledge (e.g. when the Saudis are going to announce news that will raise the price of oil, they buy oil). This puts them ahead of the market.

And they're obviously not going to share those tips on the internet. Why let other people leech off your skill, and reduce your returns?

>>15923984
>99% of all traders lose money in the long run.
This isn't true. It's probably true for /biz/'s attempts to trade, though.

There are undoubtedly high-level traders that make a ton of money. It's an incredibly sophisticated and elite skill, though. And you're not going to learn it on /biz/.

>>15924008
>To make money consistently daytrading you really need enough capital to influence the market
Not true.

Firstly, daytrading is usually not an effective strategy - it's just a popular one, because its fun in the same way that gambling is fun.

Secondly, having a lot of capital makes daytrading impractical. Any attempt to trade will move the market, and reduce your returns.

[Anonymous No.15924058]

>>15923799
Propper traders use forward looking indicators like PMI/NMI, Surveys, Housing permits. Most traders are to concerned with the past! Hence why most fail!

[Anonymous No.15924074]

>>15923806
>by design
Citation required

[Anonymous No.15924079]

>>15923799
> to trade for a living
Basically with a serious discipline with loss-management, even poker players have it.

[Anonymous No.15924184]

>>15924074
Inflation

[Anonymous No.15924198]

>>15924079
What the hell are you talking about

Poker is a game of skill
Skillful players win
Virtues mean NOTHING if you are not skillful
Skill is mostly a hidden power within people; some people have it and they all have to spend ridiculous amount of time and money to develop it

Losing in poker means nothing. You either quit like a whiny bitch, or you keep believing that you are special and keep playing

[Anonymous No.15924237]

>>15923799
>If technical analysis is pseudoscience

It's not.

>>15923799
>Then how is it possible for someone to trade for a living?

It's not.

[Anonymous No.15924240]

>>15923799
It’s not pseudoscience if the market isn’t completely run by algos that work on std dev models
>oh wow momentum increasing!
>lemme sell, this level of risk is getting out of hand!
Whereas a competent technical analyst would have started to add risk
Algos ruin all the fun

[Anonymous No.15924246]

>>15923799
Insider knowledge of Trade Deals

[Anonymous No.15924250]

>>15923799
1bitcoin for 1 qt trap gf

[Anonymous No.15924253]

>>15924240
I guess you would just go short instead but yeah it’s a new game

[Anonymous No.15924260]

>>15924250
wrong thread, will delete

[Anonymous No.15924264]

>>15924237
There are lots of people who trade for a living.

And TA is mostly nonsense and bad statistics.

[Anonymous No.15924265]

>>15924198
If you play for a living you have to know how to lose.

[Anonymous No.15924274]

>>15924246
Buy ETH 2.0 infrastructure like PNK, MKR, Aragon, oh wait fuck Aragon.

[Anonymous No.15924326]

>>15924240
TA is mostly pseudoscience. My job is finance-related statistics. Not anything near the stock market, but it's related.

If I want to demonstrate the relationship between X and Y (e.g. a head-and-shoulders and the stock price declining), I need to do a LOT of statistical analysis. And spend a lot of time carefully refining a model, and proving that the connection exists, using certain statistical techniques.

TA essentially skips this entire process. It's basically just "look at a chart, and decide". This makes it entirely subjective. And when researchers measure how effective these subjective judgments are, they're usually found to be useless predictors.

Basically, TA could theoretically be a thing, but not in it's lazy form. And, of course, it's lazy form is 99% of TA.

[Anonymous No.15924377]

>>15924326
So basically you're speaking a bunch of rubbish on something you have no understanding of/experience in using.

[Anonymous No.15924411]

>>15924326
My guy, you miss the entire point of why only a few people make money with TA. You just don’t see it, and I bet you also don’t make money.

[Anonymous No.15924488]

>>15924377
I fully understand TA, which is why I'm shitting on it.

>>15924411
I make good money. I don't use TA, because I understand how it's stupid.

[Anonymous No.15924552]

>>15924326
>It's basically just "look at a chart, and decide"

Ironically, this is my favourite kind of TA. After watching 1000s of charts for years my brain became barely able to see anything else.

I think a lot of the "it works" vs. "it doesn't work" stuff comes from (as usual) two totally different ways of using and judging it.

The vast majority of supposed chart patterns and candle combos are quite likely of low or no statistical relevance. But there are other larger, harder-to-describe setups which are just SCREAMINGLY obvious. Two examples - the 6k flat bottom going to break on BTC last year. Anyone with a single brain cell knew that would happen, I don't know what to call it or why but I've just seen it 1000 times before and it FEELS like it has to dump through. It physically could not have gone up from there.

Then, early this year, the creeping, rounded bottom, loaded with tension and anticipation - nothing was ever going to come out of that except a huge pump.

I came to crypto with the firm belief that TA was absolute bullshit and everything was completely random (which is the alternative, but few are willing to claim that), but after several years I found myself recognising patterns, setups and general "feelings" of charts to know what will happen. Add that to some concept of market caps and sentiment analysis and the only way to go wrong is if you lose your head.

I deffo understand your PoV and the way you're approaching it, and I know how stupid this sounds but we're in clown world anyway - it's really more art than science. But it works, when it works. You have to just know when to use it. People trying to match up candlesticks on 1min charts? BTFO. Looking at much longer, wider plays and chart behaviour? Almost infallible.

[Anonymous No.15924557]

>>15924488
I find overly rigorous statistics to be stupid as well. We can agree to disagree I guess. I just think you’ll inevitably miss things because of measurement issues.

[Anonymous No.15924568]

>>15924552
Same held true for Link going below 2 bucks. And Link generally behaving like BTC in fast forward. It's just how it is. But I don't think you really need TA for it. Nor look at thousands of charts. I found these to be obvious even from a casual perspective...

[Anonymous No.15924570]

>>15924552
So whats your feeling at this level. Is it the local bottom before the bull run or a shelf on the way down?

[Anonymous No.15924587]

>>15924488
Yeah, I'm sure you know it all. Now go "test" for Head and Shoulders when a higher time frame is in an Uptrend or is breaking ouy of a bullish setup.

[Anonymous No.15924593]

All it takes is one Investment in an upcoming Crypto startups! Let me help you with this - Go for Terra. They dropped the bomb at KBW2019 - https://zerocrypted.com/how-will-terra-disrupt-the-payments-blockchain-industry/

[Anonymous No.15924615]

>>15924050
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15924621]

>>15924568
>I found these to be obvious even from a casual perspective...

A complete newcomer wouldn't know what to make of it, it's from exposure to things that we subconsciously start to recognise the patterns. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if SOME part of it comes from innate ways our brain works, right?

>>15924570
>So whats your feeling at this level. Is it the local bottom before the bull run or a shelf on the way down?

I have no strong opinions about it yet, pic related. I'm glad I'm all in shitcoins and just waiting for year-level movements, desu.
One thing I'd say for either BTC trading or shitcoin flipping is that if you're fucking sure, stay out.

[Anonymous No.15924644]

take 1000000 people
half of them bet number go up
half of them bet number go down
500000 are right
repeat that process 3 times
you still have
500k / 2 = 250k
250k / 2 = 125k
125k / 2 = 62.5k winners
it's a mathematical inevitability some people will be lucky enough to make good bets; and you can stretch that inevitability by gambling on markets that have gone up historically, and never bet your whole stack
i.e., if you make 2% bets, even a series of losses will not flush you out
consider the way influencers/traders speak. if you're not a retard yourself, they probably sound pretty dumb to you. trust your instincts: their initial existence is fueled by survivorship bias. the smart ones realise their exit strategy is to sell their string of luck as technique, but in truth most trader-influencers are just attracted by greed and fame
then you've got people who just exploit some manner of inside information, whether because it's not accessible to the public, or because it is technically obtuse and lacks visibility because of that. to get the odd shot like this can happen to anyone (i.e. ethereum was an incredibly obvious asymmetrical opportunity in early 2017), but you cannot "trade for a living" in that manner without relying on luck once again

[Anonymous No.15924667]

>>15924552
>I think a lot of the "it works" vs. "it doesn't work" stuff comes from (as usual) two totally different ways of using and judging it.
Yep. And I think you accurately describe the mentality of both sides, even though we're on opposite sides.

>But there are other larger, harder-to-describe setups which are just SCREAMINGLY obvious.
I mean, if you are fully persuaded in your abilities to subjectively identify patterns, you could design an experiment to prove that.

Make dozens of public predictions over a period of years, and see if you are right. Then analyze your accuracy, and present the analysis to some hedge fund guy. If your accuracy is impressive, you might be able to wrangle a high-paying job out of it.

Of course, that's a lot of work, and you probably don't want to do it for practical reasons.

I think that your method doesn't work. And that your belief is probably a mixture of various biases (e.g. confirmation bias) and undefined problems (e.g. what constitutes a "rise in the price of Bitcoin"? 1%? 2%? 10%? And in what time frame?). But hey, the only way to empirically resolve our disagreement, we aren't going to do.

>Almost infallible.
If it's almost infallible, you should be able to gain an excellent record of predictions, without very many predictions. If you're nearly 100% accurate, it's very easy for an observer to notice very quickly.

>>15924557
With all due respect, chances are, you don't know much about statistics. It's a complicated field, and most people don't enjoy learning about it, so few people casually learn about it.

>measurement issues
That's generally not a problem with financial markets.

>>15924587
I mean, feel free to use TA in your own trading strategy. It's not my money.

And stuff like TA has been subjected to EXTENSIVE academic testing. Especially favorite patterns like head-and-shoulders. In general, they don't find anything.

[Anonymous No.15924676]

>>15924615
I said a bunch of different stuff. It's unlikely that everything I said was wrong.

[Anonymous No.15924725]

>>15924667
>And stuff like TA has been subjected to EXTENSIVE academic testing. Especially favorite patterns like head-and-shoulders. In general, they don't find anything.
I never said I traded Head and Shoulders, the point I was trying to make is that I need certain conditions in place BEFORE I start looking for Bearish Continuation setups, on a given time frame. I doubt academic studies do that, for whatever reason (most likely because they already "know" it's bunch of bullshit), they probably just look for a given setup, in a completely blasé manner.

Academics price derivatives and find arbitrage opportunities, far better than I ever will. That doesn't mean they're going to be experts at everything, even they, or you, think they are.

[Anonymous No.15924728]

>>15923799

TA is a legitimate analytical tool for the past. Repeat after me, fucking degenerates - only for the past performance. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the future, not even projection of a vectors or momentum since these concepts are not applicable in this communication context.

Fucking idiots

[Anonymous No.15924742]

>>15924667
>Make dozens of public predictions over a period of years, and see if you are right.

I made about 20-25 (can't even remember), and 100% correct, shitcoin (and a couple of bitcoin) calls last year on a discord, semi-public I suppose. Admittedly, these did involve some other considerations like those I mentioned in an earlier post - awareness of market cap, say, and "newness of coin" etc) Some took my calls, but others wouldn't specifically because of this sort of concern:

>>15924667
>what constitutes a "rise in the price of Bitcoin"? 1%? 2%? 10%? And in what time frame?

This is another part of the disagreement - how specific do we have to be. Does it matter? In my mind, now - if I scroll through IDEX and find a shitcoin that I'm dead sure is going to pump a shitload "soon", to me that's fucking good enough because it [makes me money] which is the final and only concern. Others would say to me that if I can't tell them when to sell, as well as when to buy then it's no use. But that's the dynamic bit and you have to wait and see, you can't easily predict a top while you're still at the bottom.

Similarly, I don't know if a buildup is going to pop today, tomorrow, or next week, but it's just "soon". And, does it matter, really? Just buy (or sell) and wait until it happens. The calls I'm speaking of would be enacted within a matter of weeks, say. The closer you get, the more the tension builds, and the more obvious it becomes. In shitcoins, things can be ruined suddenly by the actions of a single trader - an added complication.

We see how hard it is to even agree on what we're trying to look for, let alone what the actual patterns are. Come to the issue with a bias (as everyone does) and it's just too easy to be looking at different things altogether.

[Anonymous No.15924750]

>>15924676

One question for you, then - do you think charts are a random walk? If you were tasked with trading bitcoin, would you near enough just toss a coin at the end of each period to decide long or short?

Or, can you think of any situations in BTC's history where you had a better-than-chance idea about what was going to happen. Even something extreme like the 10-20k region in 2017, does it count as TA to look at the vertical green, price doubling in a week, and decide it's time to sell?

[Anonymous No.15924760]

>>15924326

Oh lol fucko.

Your shitty model is never accurate no matter how much statistical tricks you apply - the market change since your last incomplete snapshot of it, and the incompleteness and stochastic movements is exactly what makes all your statistical shit wrong.

Learn some philosophy lmao.

BTW, it is okay that you could make money with this. Even churches still make money in 2019. Kys.

[Anonymous No.15924791]

>>15924750
Looking at price even twice over any period of time is basically ta

[Anonymous No.15924801]

>>15924198
I want to qualify that poker is very different from playing blackjack, pontoon or some other variation of 21.

The only skill involved in poker is reading the other players. The only chance that happens has already happened by the time the first card is dealt. No player folding or holding will influence the number of cards coming out of the deck for the rest of the hand.

[Anonymous No.15924825]

>>15924742
Can you drop contact or add me on discord ? I'm interested about your knowledge so I can begin my own analysis, not about getting spoonfed.

[Anonymous No.15924848]

>>15924801
>The only skill involved in poker is reading the other players. The only chance that happens has already happened by the time the first card is dealt. No player folding or holding will influence the number of cards coming out of the deck for the rest of the hand.
You guys should probably not talk about things you've no fucking clue about.
>pot odds
>ICM

[Anonymous No.15924894]

>>15924725
Again, feel free to trade however you want. It's your money.

>>15924742
>I made about 20-25 (can't even remember), and 100% correct, shitcoin (and a couple of bitcoin) calls
You mean you made 20 calls, and all of them were correct? No misses? That's would be an exceptionally good record. Personally, I have some doubt. I suspect that you might be using ad hoc definitions of success, or forgetting the missed predictions.

But if I'm wrong and you made 20 calls, and all of them were correct, that's a ridiculously exceptional record. And by that, I mean any hedge fund investor would be ecstatic about that record, and would beg you to have you manage his money.

Try putting this stuff together on a blog or something. Compile your record, and demonstrate how unlikely it was to occur by random chance. You could even offer to manage people's money for them, for a large fee.

>This is another part of the disagreement - how specific do we have to be. Does it matter?
Well, you can made any prediction you want. But if you make a predictions like "Bitcoin will go up in price", realize that if you don't specifically define the details, you have a nearly 100% chance of being right.

If Bitcoin is trading at $8,000, I can nearly guarantee that it will eventually trade at above $8,000. Random fluctuations around $8,000 will eventually lead to a price of $8,002 or $8,012, or something. And then you can claim that your prediction was correct. The only way for the prediction to be incorrect, was if at the exact moment of the trade, Bitcoin had a large decline, and never rose to $8,000 again. And, of course, large declines are rare enough, that it's rather unlikely.

Now, a prediction like "Bitcoin will be in the range of $9,000 - $9,500 in December", is specific, and nowhere near 100% likely. And if someone can make those predictions, it's very impressive.

>>15924760
>statistics is wrong, god is a lie, so go commit suicide
You need to go back to pleddit.

[Anonymous No.15924956]

>>15924848
in terms of your hand, it doesn't change for texas hold'em, which is the most popular type of poker played where i'm from. pretty much the only type of poker played.

pot odds constitute reading the other player - are they bluffing? you shouldn't use it comparatively as a "game of skill" ... it's a very different skillset compared to predicting probabilities in a multi-deck shoe for a 21 variant.

suck me.

[Anonymous No.15924968]

>>15924050
>High-level traders don't use TA, retard.
completely wrong. that's actually the dirty little secret institutions dont want plebs to know

[Anonymous No.15924975]

>>15924725
>I doubt academic studies do that, for whatever reason (most likely because they already "know" it's bunch of bullshit), they probably just look for a given setup, in a completely blasé manner.
Not really. You can run a multi-correlation between a thousand different variables - it's super easy. So (using your example) they've probably covered the combination of

>high time frame is in an Uptrend
>Head-and-Shoulders
>Various other variables that you could mention

The largest issue with academic approximation and testing of TA is probably defining it. I mean, how do you mathematically describe a Head-and-Shoulders pattern? I'm sure you could come up with some answer, but if I asked a different person a different question, they might have a different answer.

Stuff like "higher time frame is in an Uptrend" is less difficult to define and approximate. It's easier.

[Anonymous No.15924985]

>>15924968
Wall Street tends to see TA as "below" them. If it's a secret, it must be a rather well kept one.

[Anonymous No.15924986]

>>15924956
>pot odds constitute reading the other player
Lol. No it's the price you're laying or receiving to call a bet.

[Anonymous No.15924999]

>>15923799
BitMex top10 shows it is possible but I think most of those are high level quants. Notice how AngeloBTC isn't in the top10 anymore. He fucking lost his shit when things went bear. So moral of the story, if you're not a quant. Do go long on high leverage in bull markets, but know when to quit.

Though I do think if you have enough capital, that with a few trades a month you can earn a really good living if you only take the high quality signals.

[Anonymous No.15925047]

>>15924848
> ICM
this, no parapsychical skills involved

[Anonymous No.15925062]

>>15924801
>pot odds constitute reading the other player - are they bluffing?
Dude, google the term "pot odds".

>>15924750
>do you think charts are a random walk?
I think they tend to be pretty close to a random walk. And that opportunities to exploit the non-random part are rare, and minimally profitable, after you subtract trading fees and other costs associated with it.

>If you were tasked with trading bitcoin, would you near enough just toss a coin at the end of each period to decide long or short?
Definitely not. Firstly, you'll face different taxes, depending on how you trade. Long-term investing will be better for you tax-wise (although you might not consider that trading).

Secondly. if I expect Bitcoin to rise over the long-term, I'd prefer the long trade. If I expect Bitcoin to decline over the long-term, I'd prefer to be short. Even if I'm only in Bitcoin for a short period of time, I still would prefer to be on the side of the long-term trend.

>can you think of any situations in BTC's history where you had a better-than-chance idea about what was going to happen
Not really. Of course, I don't follow BTC's price much. I'm more of a stock guy.

>does it count as TA to look at the vertical green, price doubling in a week, and decide it's time to sell?
Yea. TA is usually defined as anything based on current/past price information. And that's definitely based on past current/past price information.

[Anonymous No.15925090]

>>15924968
I have seen one hedgefund in action trough a youtube video and basically what the guy did was all fundamental research. Then when they figured out what to buy they had one guy in their team specialized in chart reading who would define an entry point for them in the short term. But no they're not staring at charts all day. Which is rather stupid to stare at charts all day. You're much better off networking and learning about the real world.

[Anonymous No.15925147]

TA is game theory

to me the best way to trade is to make very few trades per year while studying the overall markets/economies just a little bit every day, and this way I see no reason not to make about 20%

I hear of people who get into options and start making "$2000 per week" or whatever and I'd hate to live that way especially upon realizing that the strategy that's worked up til now just got you rekt.. as for the guys in firms, I imagine they basically study it hardcore and they talk amongst eachother before making big moves

just remember TA is relevant because it is game theory and even a little knowledge of patterns can give you an edge even if you make very few trades per year like I suggest

[Anonymous No.15925171]

>>15923799
It's possible to trade for a living by not trading U.S. markets because they are rigged against you. Technical Analysis on markets that aren't rigged has some value when used correctly, but it especially has a synergy with Order Flow and both of those have a synergy with Market Depth. Those have some synergy with generalized fundamental economic insights pertaining to whatever it is you're trading. When used correctly on markets that aren't rigged you can tap into a pretty good frequency of wins and in general they'll have some steam in them.

However...all of this means NOTHING on markets where the microstructure, broker/market maker relationships, and legislation of the country is designed to fuck over non-institutional traders as is the case on U.S. markets. Maybe it was made this way intentionally (sure seems that way if you look into the history) or maybe it just evolved this way on its own (definitely possibility given what we know about systems), but the bottom line is there is an enormous amount of data out there to suggest U.S. markets are rigged to fuck and almost no approach you use as a retail trader is going to work long term.

This has nothing to do with your intelligence or your "grit." U.S. markets are so rigged that it's legitimately like a carnival game where you're given balls that are too big to fit in the cup you're supposed to throw them into while institutions are given ones that fit. Even that doesn't do justice to how rigged it is against you. If more people knew the truth no one would participate on U.S. markets outside of maybe putting some money in mutual funds or something similar. This is why all these prop firms are now "education" services where as before they basically just trained people in house and traded full time. This defective market structure in the U.S. is almost certainly going to have some big consequences and it's possible we have and already are seeing them.

[Anonymous No.15925526]

>>15925062
>if I expect Bitcoin to rise over the long-term
>If I expect Bitcoin to decline over the long-term

And this would be based on non-TA factors? Would you even look at the chart?

Do you think chart have any place in trading and investing at all, we could ask?

I do feel that you, like all others, actually give tremendous weight to TA[broad definition] but quite rightly criticise TA[narrow definition]

TA[narrow definition] is basically defined by anti-TA folk, as well, and it includes only the TA that doesn't work. TA[broad definition] is "not actually TA, it's just common sense"... but as you correctly note it's all TA, anything to do with price.

Do you have any means to generate a random price chart, and what does it look like? Do they look subjectively like crypto charts? I can't imagine so, because traders are not trading at random, so how can the price be random? At 20k, do you propose that it dumped "randomly"? Or was it in fact that the overwhelming consensus of traders became that it was grossly overvalued. That's not random.

In a crab market, and on short timescales - yea, maybe. Like during the course of 24hrs today the 5min candles are in essence "random" (not in the real sense of the word), but I think it would be very hard to describe the longer term price movements as such.

[Anonymous No.15925548]

>>15924894
>You mean you made 20 calls, and all of them were correct? No misses? That's would be an exceptionally good record. Personally, I have some doubt. I suspect that you might be using ad hoc definitions of success, or forgetting the missed predictions.
>But if I'm wrong and you made 20 calls, and all of them were correct, that's a ridiculously exceptional record. And by that, I mean any hedge fund investor would be ecstatic about that record, and would beg you to have you manage his money.
>Try putting this stuff together on a blog or something. Compile your record, and demonstrate how unlikely it was to occur by random chance. You could even offer to manage people's money for them, for a large fee.


Yep legit 100% hit rate. I specialised in shitcoins and it's so fucking easy to see which ones are primed for a pump. I think my worst only went like 50%, best is up 40x and probably going to be a long-term winner (QNT from July 18). It's up to the individual to pick an exit point, and with shitcoins you can't tell people exactly when to sell because liquidity is so low that it changes things as soon as someone trades.

I considered a blog/twitter but I don't have very good ability to persuade people of things - in fact the opposite, I have a kind of anti-charisma, unfortunately. Plus I think too much involvement in trading is seriously bad for mental health, so I don't want to get any deeper than I am.

[Anonymous No.15925558]

>>15923799
Its all about luck and risk management.
TA just gives you the courage to get out there and get lucky. Risk management lets you preserve that capital. Most people get lucky, think its skill, dont manage their risk and blow up.

[Anonymous No.15925607]

>>15925526
of course the market is not random, butr the information you get to assess it is

[Anonymous No.15925623]

>>15925607

u wot?

[Anonymous No.15925631]

>>15925623
as a retail trader. if you are the market maker with real time input from the exchange then you cant lose

[Anonymous No.15925670]

Worth watching for new guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7G0OfJUON8

[Anonymous No.15925690]

>>15923799
Because TA isn't the only strategy to use to trade. Some people trade in the short term meaning a year or 2 out, and look for fundamentals. There's a million different ways to trade.

[Anonymous No.15925731]

>>15925631
>as a retail trader. if you are the market maker with real time input from the exchange then you cant lose

So again you're talking about very short time scales, right? I'm pretty sure looking at weekly BTC candles, everyone is given the same info.

I said it before but herein lies the problem. Debates about this begin without anyone defining terms or deciding what we're even talking about.

So you have some people imagining "trading" as 1s candles and HFT style furious clicking, and others thinking of one or two actions per year plus a good sell point later in the cycle.

Pointless thread really, unless OP clearly defines the question.

[Anonymous No.15925757]

>>15925670
Link to all his course

https://mega.nz/#F!0SRC1YKL!rVqp1WtBUHsOKm-ig_KiMQ

Your welcome!

[Anonymous No.15925775]

>>15925731
not just short time scales, at pretty much any point.

[Anonymous No.15925866]

>>15925631
Bingo. If nothing else would fuck you over, then one major thing that does is the difference between the consolidated quote and the direct feed. You as retail get the consolidated quote. Institutions get the direct feed and use it to trade against the consolidated quote. This is before even taking into account order flow selling, flagging retail orders under the guise of "price improvement", and ALL of the other assorted bullshit (and it is almost innumerable) that goes on at almost every step of the process.
>>15925731
At least on non-crypto U.S. markets (not enough microstructure knowledge about crypto) there are always 2 prices. Sometimes they're equal, but generally they aren't. There are too many microstructure and other issues to list, but you're really not safe at any time scale. Larger time scales just delay the feedback you receive to how fucked things are.

[Anonymous No.15925885]

>>15923799
if there's a 50% chance it means ~50% get lucky?

how is this even a question OP?

[Anonymous No.15925951]

>>15925775
>not just short time scales, at pretty much any point.

There we have it, lads - that BTC chart you're seeing? Not the same one other people see. //They// deliver you a random one so that you fuck up and buy the top, sell the bottom.

Malware on your computer makes it seem like everyone else is posting the same chart as you, but actually they are seeing different ones as well.

If I write that the current price is $8300 then it will read to you like $8300 but actually I could have said $50,000 or $1,000 (as my charts may show) but you'd have it filtered to your version.

Now it all makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15926041]

>>15925951
yea i mean no one could possibly make a wrong trade on the WEEKLY amiritie

[Anonymous No.15926127]

>>15926041
I double my money on the Weekly, WEEKLY

[Anonymous No.15926173]

>>15926127
only double? lmao

[Anonymous No.15926179]

>>15926041
>no one could possibly make a wrong trade on the WEEKLY

Of course people can make wrong trades all the time, what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.15926263]

>>15926179
Your posts resonate with me, I ended up with the same answers you write on my own most of the time. However...
What do you do use then? Just looking at the chart and deciding doesnt really work for me. Yes I saw the two big moves you mentioned in >>15924552 but I also saw a lot of other moves that never happened. How do I calibrate my eyes better? Is there some more technical method you use to "double check" or justify your entry?
Also, what about stop losses. You say that if you know its going to moon just buy some. But what if it makes another low before mooning? What if you were wrong and it will never moon after that new low?

Any input is appreciated anon.

[Anonymous No.15926357]

>>15924240
Imo, as I have no proof, algo's definitely ruin the potential winnings. Big company with millions or billions of dollars and sophisticated algo's versus you. They have enough capital to swing the price in their favor and then sell you the stock at said inflated price because "its been pumping for a week, I should get in now!" and then when they're done trickling the shares out...no one else wants to buy at said price. Cause you and whoever else bought were the ones they sold it to. Congrats you're now a bagholder. Perhaps another company will pump it and you sell rather than "it will definitely go higher this time" and you start buying again. Congrats it got crashed again and your bags weigh twice as much. Heck iirc it was JPM that got caught manipulating pm futures. Odds are all the people screwed over will get no financial restitution and the manipulators will likely get a slap on the wrist, maybe 6 months in a white collar prison or maybe a fine...that is given to the government

[Anonymous No.15926387]

>>15925866
Im surprised the government allows this. It's literally a casino.

[Anonymous No.15926408]

>>15926263
>Also, what about stop losses. You say that if you know its going to moon just buy some. But what if it makes another low before mooning?

I only shitcoin, so no stoplosses. If there's a drawdown, so be it. I put a lot of new ETH into quant at 0.012-0.015 earlier in the year and it dumped to 0.007 before going back up. No big deal, you don't need THE BOTTOM, you just need a "good price".


> What if you were wrong and it will never moon after that new low?

Then I lose my money, I guess.

>Any input is appreciated anon.

Buying low-cap shitcoins makes this extremely low risk, they "can't" go down or go down forever. Maybe months at a time, but so what? The main risk is project collapse or figurehead loss.

[Anonymous No.15926410]

TA is just trying to replicate a form of pattern recognition that’s built into certain people’s genes. It’s like being able to sing.

[Anonymous No.15926689]

Professional Gambler.