Niranjanam said:
I beg to differ sir. Then there is no need for any analysis.Any random entry can be made to work with money power
Hypothetically yes, presuming unlimited and unmatched market moving power. But of course, practically speaking, big entities didn't get big by not striving to ensure that their positions are entered in the most efficient manner
Niranjanam said:
Retailer do not have firepower and most of them are wise enough to understand this fact
Are they really?!! Well.....if you say so
Niranjanam said:
You are talking about significant levels.Are you identifying them without any reasoning? Or are you classify them in hindsight?
That's a vast separate topic for discussion
. Lets just keep it short by defining them as levels which are considered significant because the market and the market participants make them so
Niranjanam said:
I am relatively unknown in the forum because of my "SOFT" stand unlike your " OFT" stance
Nice One!
Basically meant to say that at the risk of sounding repetitive, I still couldn't resist trotting out my '
worn out from overuse' response
Niranjanam said:
You talk about confirmation now and it contradicts your trade mentioned in post no 45.I agree with your earlier stand
Ah, Finally! Though from someone of your caliber, I expected this rejoinder to have been voiced earlier!!!
I deliberately mentioned this trade with the specific aim of pointing out the,
extremely sensible and pertinent, market truism posted by
BNFTrader a couple of posts prior! The market is not only an arena wherein various participants are vying for dominance but is effectively an arena of clash for dominance by different timeframes! Hence in the charts posted by you - what appears to be a major retracement and cause for consternation in that timeframe, could merely be a minor sideways price action blip on somebody else's radar on a different (higher) timeframe. That somebody assessed the upward trend to be still intact and acted accordingly (same
confirmatory reasoning applied to my illustrated trade example, hence mentioned)
Niranjanam said:
You can accept or reject an idea. But you cant call it a fad and rule out the worthiness before back testing on your own.Regarding credentials, I dont think Ziad Misri and Awais Bokhari will ever need your certificate
No, I am not calling the idea itself a fad.
I am categorizing the tendency of any trader to put money at risk on a concept without having assessed it on its own merit, as akin to subscribing to a fad
As an aside - the comment regarding
certifying somebody was wholly unnecessary (not to mention, being in dubious taste as well) as we are not discussing personalities but ideas/ concepts and I fully expect you to recant it
I suppose in such discussions, misunderstandings do tend to be an occupational hazard
. Hence before any more occur, let me just summarize
You posted charts of situations/ market action wherein retail traders (supposedly) have been hung out to dry. You asked who did this? Why? And how a retail trader can avoid being chewed up in such situations?
On the point of who? and why? it appears that all are in common consensus
On the point of how to avoid being chewed up, you proposed a tactic which anticipates the addressed levels in these zones to hold up and accordingly enter the order without waiting for them to either hold up or to breakdown
I proposed that instead of tactics, the strategy of avoiding these zones of confusion is a better bet, until the market action resolves itself. Because at these significant levels a breach either side will lead to a maelstorm of triggered resting market orders which an average retail trader is ill equipped to handle by being handicapped in terms of firepower as well as superior tools (the most common of these being tick by tick data, direct market execution access etc) as opposed to the larger entities, for whom such situations are a favourite & fertile hunting grounds
Then you qualified your contention by citing experience and a linked video recommendation of the same by (presumably) famous traders. Well.... fair enough! Like I said 'if it works for you, then go for it' (there... I did it again
For other people, it is merely being advised that in keeping with dictates of prudence, it is better to test any idea before subscribing to it whole heartedly, no matter by whom it may have been recommended
Further,
My stated stance on the subject in simple terms is, that it may be difficult to salvage a doubtful strategy, no matter however much the tactics be tweaked! The way I look at it, a trader with superior skill ought to utilize it skilfully to avoid situations which require extensive use of that superior skill just to defend against being
stoploss fodder. Instead the same skill is better utilized to screen for, and go for, the easiest and the most
sure thing trades
I suppose such a viewpoint may not be quite glamorous or exciting, but then trading is not quite about glamour or (an overdose of
excitement
P.S - This is not proposed as an argument pertaining to who is right or whose method is better. This is simply an alternate viewpoint which (hopefully) offers a viable option to tackle the illustrated situation. Am sure many more (even better) viewpoints/ innovative techniques may probably emerge down the line when additional members decide to chip in with their suggestions
Regards,