Identifying a reversal (trend change)
- Thread starter Alfing
- Start date
Reversals happen more frequently the faster the timeframe.
Ditto! The big question... "What should I do about counter move"? Is it small enough I should just ignore and ride it out? Is it big enough that I might profit by trading out? Is it the start of something much bigger... where I'd like to be on the right side of and and seriously don't want to be on the wrong side?"
Unfortunately... you'll only KNOW which is which in hindsight.
They exist on longer term charts too, one has to go to bar-by-bar analysis. It’s easier for most to ride the ups and downs vs doing the work necessary to see the opportunity.
For the greedy the opportunity doesn’t exist for they prematurely put profits ahead of insight and understanding - promptly get whomped.
Those whom methodically approached understanding market dynamics from the basic granularity on up have a different experience.
I appreciate the sentiment, thank you.
Fortunately it remains gibberish to money grubbers due to the non-public p&l, and their attachment that no other acceptable form of ‘proof’ exists.
I’m impressed with your fortitude and wish you good fortune. It’s good news that you’ve found value in receiving being ‘taken under a wing.’
If there’s a fundamental belief I have, it’s that if the universe has inspired a desire within me, it also has the capacity to fulfill that desire. This has happened much more frequently than not and the only reason it doesn’t happen is due to me not letting it in.
A meditation practice goes a long way in removing resistance to ‘having it be better.’
Trends do not exist in reality -- they are structures imposed by the human proclivity to impose order on what might otherwise be chaos. But that also means that there is no *single* way to impose that order (or, "to declare that trend") that will guarantee any sort of adherence by the next data coming down the track. ("The data don't care, Dude.") The bottom line? Trends are "broken" in the same arbitrary fashion by which they are declared -- we say so. 
Don't over-think it. Don't drink the magic-vision Kool-Aid.
Don't over-think it. Don't drink the magic-vision Kool-Aid.
Trends do not exist in reality -- they are structures imposed by the human proclivity to impose order on what might otherwise be chaos. But that also means that there is no *single* way to impose that order (or, "to declare that trend") that will guarantee any sort of adherence by the next data coming down the track. ("The data don't care, Dude.") The bottom line? Trends are "broken" in the same arbitrary fashion by which they are declared -- we say so.
Don't over-think it. Don't drink the magic-vision Kool-Aid.
I agree with the sentiment that as humans we tend to overlay our interpretations of reality on reality when the two are quite distinct.
However the magic vision Kool aid is the sole reason why an innovation comes into being. Every breakthrough innovation started as an observation that stimulated creative thinking. Creative thinking by definition makes associations where none existed before exposing deeper underlying truths and principles.
Trends do not exist in reality -- they are structures imposed by the human proclivity to impose order on what might otherwise be chaos. But that also means that there is no *single* way to impose that order (or, "to declare that trend") that will guarantee any sort of adherence by the next data coming down the track. ("The data don't care, Dude.") The bottom line? Trends are "broken" in the same arbitrary fashion by which they are declared -- we say so.
Don't over-think it. Don't drink the magic-vision Kool-Aid.
This is very true. New traders clearly think there is a set definition of a trend, like someone's personal fingerprints or DNA. In reality, my trend is a trend if I can trade it.
Ah! Forgive the fore-shortened wording. Let me clarify with two types of Kool-Aid.
There is Kool-Aid that, when drunk, leaves questions to be answered -- *that* Kool-Aid we can call, "Science."
And then there is Kool-Aid that when drunk, provides only answers: *that* Kool-Aid we can call, "Religion."
How's that?
