RE: That’s better rodders20 Feb 2024 10:55
You're wrong, the chart describes the behaviour of the market participants.
What you seem to be saying is that understanding what has happened in the past doesn't let you see into the future? If that's what you're saying, then I'm in agreement. Just as knowing the fundamentals of a company does not let you see into the future. You know what you know from the things you study and knowing something is better than knowing nothing, so you could argue that knowing something makes you better able to make decisions than those who've done no work at all. But as I said previously. Money doesn't enter the market randomly, it looks for points that are more or less likely to represent value. That means, there are places on charts that you can speculate will be more less likely reached by the SP. It's so simple it's demonstrable. If you look at the swings up and down on a chart. Where would you go long? You'd do it at the bottom of a swing right? Well if you know that it's better to enter there than where the price is showing no evidence of a bottom, then you wait for evidence that buyers are coming in and the SP trajectory looks to be changing? I feel it's so obvious that no-one can argue with it. What it doesn't mean is that you can be certain that the SP will turn as it did the last time. It just increases the likelihood of that happening. Also, it normally means you've entered at a SP lower than that you would have done had you just entered randomly. That in itself is advantageous. I maybe have a block on this, but I simply can't see how you could argue otherwise?