It's hard to keep up with all the correcting I'm doing...you are describing the traders fallacy. The stock will go from $5 to $10 just as easily as it went from $10 to $5...and so will your portfolio recover just as easily. There is no math involved here only price action
OMG I can't believe this fallacy still exists in trading!
- Thread starter wxytrader
- Start date
It's hard to keep up with all the correcting I'm doing...you are describing the traders fallacy. The stock will go from $5 to $10 just as easily as it went from $10 to $5...and so will your portfolio recover just as easily. There is no math involved here only price action
one tick at a time? Wut?
Gapping is not a characteristic of price action ..it's a characteristic of the market being closed and manipulated. The only reason to close markets is to f retail and make their stop losses useless...and make sure all the big moves happen before retail can react. It's all rigged markets should be 24/7...the current equity market options and all is completely antiquated
Become a liquidity provider and offer what you think is fair then. In that way, markets would not be rigged anymore since there's always you sitting on bids/asks offering liquidity at fair prices...
Isn't it facinating? Markets are sooo efficient in pricing that most traders never even ask the question of where does bids and asks and liquidity even come from. Everything is taken for granted. As if the almighty himself is offering those.
the math is the dubious part. it's a fallacy. I mean it is being interpreted as an indication of probability which is a fallacy.
The market should be more balanced like if there was a cap at 1% of the float. Currently institutions own 58% of AAPL according to google. If an institution owns enough shares that managing those shares can affect the price of the stock in a measurable way then that is manipulation and should not be permitted.
Last edited:
I didn't say EASILY I said JUST AS EASILY
To test this concept, I used data from this post (26 long ETFs for up to 23 years of daily data adjusted for dividends and splits with swing changes base on the highs and lows of at least the previous 8 trading days).
I found 6440 upswings with
mean time 13.3113354037267 trading days
median time 10 trading days
mean dollar change per share per trading day change 0.481707399701033
median dollar change per share per trading day change 0.238060333333333
And 6430 downswings with
mean time 9.53965785381027 trading days
median time 7 trading days
mean dollar change per share per trading day change 0.561237425952638
median dollar change per share per trading day change 0.27939325
The downswings happened faster with more movement per bar than the upswings.
So, this evidence demonstrates it's easier for prices to go down than up.