Don't memorize patterns, candlesticks, and etc
If you want to get better at this gam,ask yourself
What are traders on the sideline thinking?
Where will other traders get trapped?
Where’s the path of least resistance?
Where will new players enter?
Where will losers cut loss?
Then one can see what happened next.
But nobody tell this.
Unfortunately nobody shares this.
Mostly all r busy in indicators can’t see it.
I only & only trade these traps only.
See the red arrow bull candle close at day high then fall. Isn’t there similarity.
Friends, all charts are same. Train your eyes to see these spots & then capitalise next time.
But follow up selling is not coming.
If it won’t go down then where else?
Obviously up
These patterns generally forms as bearish trend diminishes and bulls trend starts.
Chart crying
Buy me, buy me... I gonna up.
But ppl still busy in indicators.
Friends, trust me . Just follow Price, you would do wonders.
Like :-
Where Price is approaching?
From where it is coming ?
Is there any important support/Resistance nearby?
How & where big boys can trap you?
That’s enough.
Say good bye to indicators.
My own learning:-
— Namrata (@Chartsbank) July 10, 2020
When there is a gap down opening, dont sell at open.
Sell on rise only.
I ll share 4-5 charts tonight for better understanding .
Then it goes for Retest this time either accept or reject the new demand zone. If rejects then it turn out to b range bound day as price goes back up again.If accept then selling continues.....
Never chase
Always take a retracement entry
Once the trend for the day is known, take trade @ the retracements to ride the trade
Patience to enter
Patience to wait for target...
-> if after initial big move, price sustains either side of VWAP, it gonna be a big trend day after retracement to VWAP.
first candle itself Rejected at PDH & then quick fall.
If a small candle then can go with Sl at day high.
You May Also Like
✨📱 iOS 12.1 📱✨
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?