#FreeTip
#PriceAction
This PA concept is not avlb in any textbooks:
In an uptrending market if the candle size decreases
a) but in an upward trajectory, the chances of price falling is high.
b) but in an horizontal / downward trajectory, the chances of continuing trend high
More from HMK alias MANOJ
More from Stockslearnings
I have explained the importance of meeasuring momentum of the trend.
U can guage the strength in the trend once u know how to measure the direction.
This trend strength is infact signals the trend continuity or the potetnial for sustanining the trend.
Thats great assurace to hav https://t.co/HanLvlXkjQ
U can guage the strength in the trend once u know how to measure the direction.
This trend strength is infact signals the trend continuity or the potetnial for sustanining the trend.
Thats great assurace to hav https://t.co/HanLvlXkjQ
Before making ur trade entry or even before making a bias of trend as either bullish or bearish, do u use any objective measures to define the trend based on price, volume and momentum?
— Aneesh Philomina Antony (@ProdigalTrader) May 15, 2021
Price will always go back and forth move no matter how strong the trend is.
1/4 pic.twitter.com/qqizh2JO3J
You May Also Like
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?