One which I'm getting asked a lot and a traders biggest dilemma is "WHEN TO SELL"!!
It's Sunday morning and I'm grumpy 😑😑 and bored 🥱🥱
Why you ask? It's the weekend, everybody loves the weekend. Time to chill and relax and unwind!!
Yeah talk to a Trader!! We hate weekends and Love Mondays 😂🤣😋
One which I'm getting asked a lot and a traders biggest dilemma is "WHEN TO SELL"!!
Shud be super happy rite?
Unfortunately that's a traders worst nightmare!! Why you ask? Cos goddamit when do we sell?
If we wait too long it might just reverse and we lose most of our profits and most likely even end up in a loss
If we do nothing then our blood pressure goes up cos hey we're traders and that's how we are 😋😋
** Took me several days to come up with this catch phrase for my learning threads. I hope you guys like it
If you do it consistently enough those profits will add up and you'll end being richer and more confident allowing you to ride winners as your trading improves
But remember this works only if you get your entry right and following classical charting in the best way for that
Before anything we wait patiently for the pattern to setup and enter only on a confirmed breakout which is marked on the chart with a blue arrow
With that I mean set your SL as per your risk profile. RISK MANAGEMENT is always a traders top most priority
This is good for rookie traders so that you slowly accumulate profits. Might sound less but remember banks give you 5% a year and here you're getting 5% in a few days sometimes even a few hours
The 161.8% Fib level from the high to the low of the pattern is your exit level
It's simple, easy, fuss free and almost always works
Classical chartists follow this and magically it almost always works as well.
Richard Schabacker considered the grandfather of technical analysis follows this method in his book "Technical Analysis and Stock Market Profits"
More Profits = More Capital = More Confidence = More Chances you will ride winners better
Consider each trade to be ur mistress and not your wife. Done with one mistress, move on and look for another. Isn't that every guys dream anyway 😋😋
It's every girls dream as well but unfortunately they get branded sluts! But that's another topic
More from Trading
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?