Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

tmbaru

Why Successful Traders Use Fibonacci Retracements

Recommended Posts

I'm not looking to get started.

 

The link only points out some of the false claims. I could pick apart some of the points made there if I wanted to kill some time.

 

BTW both fundamental and technical studies are full of false claims as well.

 

Science itself has had many things once thought to be true that are no longer or were outright exaggerations.

 

Fibs are just numbers after all but as I think I have posted previously numerous times on TL a Dow chart from the 1920's showing their effectiveness long before the crowd "discovered" them.

 

And others criticize them.

 

The problem is we can generate 2 numbers in the range 1 to 100 and use those numbers as the basis of a moving average cross system, and I'm pretty confident that I could find a financial instrument somewhere that could be traded profitably using such a system

 

Of course I could equally well find you hundreds of markets where the same system didnt work.

 

There are so many variables that fib traders simply will not address in a systematic manner. Charts themselves are simply an arbitrary construction, and that's before you even start to apply any sort of TA. What exactly constitutes a swing high, swing low etc.

 

I'm not saying fibs are not useful, I've got mountains of statistical data from years of studying these things, but the numbers and levels themselves have very little to do with profitable trading,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a natural human tendency to look for formulas that obviate the necessity to "think" and make independent decisions (to let the formula do it for you).....

 

So many threads on this site incorporate the word "successful"......and once again the same tendency comes to light.....if only someone can identify a formula that all (or many) successful traders use, then I will not have to think.....I can simply use those rules to make money.....Its called infantile or adolescent self esteem......

 

In fact, "success" is in part the ability to tolerate the stress and ambiguity of the market and still develop a profitable trading plan....my colleagues do it in several ways, the most popular is NOT to use Fibs, but to analyze the way a target market acts.....example

 

Instead of blindly using fibs to trade pullbacks in an uptrending market, you characterize the average size of pullback in your market.....and vice versa for a down trending market.....if it happens to correlate with a fib number....fine....AND THEN

 

instead of blindly throwing a contract at the market because it happens to pullback a certain distance, again my colleagues would develop a secondary non-correlated data point to help them determine whether or not the market is likely to resume its trending behavior

 

These are behaviors that adults who are professionals use (instead of fibs) and although they require more commitment and work, the result is that they have an actionable plan that can be used with confidence......and the logic can be extended to other markets....

 

Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The problem is we can generate 2 numbers in the range 1 to 100 and use those numbers as the basis of a moving average cross system, and I'm pretty confident that I could find a financial instrument somewhere that could be traded profitably using such a system"

 

 

That would not prove or disprove the presence of fibs as a basic market structure.

 

 

"Of course I could equally well find you hundreds of markets where the same system didnt work".

 

You could...if you had the time,and were prepared to do that much work in order to prove a point to those who spent the time on something that does work.

 

There are so many variables that fib traders simply will not address in a systematic manner.

 

What variables are those?

You see,one of the problems of this kind of debate,apart from the fact that everyone is talking their book and determined to stick with it,is that we're actually usually comparing apples and pears.

Taking standard retracement levels for example.Let's leave aside the "50% level" often quoted but is not a fib.And leaving aside the sq rt derivatives such as .768.

The critic will say,ok,fib levels often look good...in hindsight.How do you know if its a turning point in real time?

That is the point where progress is made from fibs 101.Individual progress from fibs 101 is not something that is tested .But then,i sometimes have a problem with the scientific approach.The scientific approach is sometimes- I have a theory (in this case,fib ratios don't work) and now I will prove it.

Confirmation bias is often a double edged sword.

 

 

 

"Charts themselves are simply an arbitrary construction, and that's before you even start to apply any sort of TA. What exactly constitutes a swing high, swing low etc!.

 

Mmm.....And that's a negative is it? Because for me,it's a positive.In the same way as a road is an arbitrary construction but driving isn't.

Is a chart an arbitrary construction when one is bias? I only ask because I guess 90% of members here present charts...I guess you mean charts are arbitrary for all methods equally and that fibs aren't a special case in this regard.If so that's a criticism of all TA....no?

Do you use a chart? If so,do you say- ah,i know it's arbitrary ,but what the hell.

Some people don't believe any TA works,but there seems to be a special kind of hostility reserved for Fibonacci.

 

"What actually constitutes a swing high,swing low etc".?

 

On the face of it a reasonable question.Fibs are calculated from H/L's.

Who should answer that question?

If we can make Steve 46's point minus the snide and condescending tone...the trader.

Can you read a market? 'Cos if not I would suggest any method is going to be ..difficult.

Here,all methods come under the umbrella of- can you read a market?

To suggest fibs are a special case....is irrational.

Now,i'm not putting you in the camp of the average poster here.After all,you have "mountains of research"..fruitless,as it turns out.I'm sure you are expert in your own field,as i'm sure i'm ignorant in many other fields.But what is the basic problem here with fibs.?

 

I would suggest it's because the average requirement,much like other things,such as indicators,is that they must tell you exactly when to buy and when to sell.in the most basic,simple way,otherwise they are "arbitrary".Is such a requirement reasonable,logical or likely to succeed? I think not.If we were talking about other forms of TA that wouldn't be difficult to agree on,but somehow fibs are a special case.Apparently the fibs are voodoo but the researcher isn't unrealistic.

 

Like anything else,knowing the answers to HOW/WHERE/WHY and WHY NOT is what makes one an expert.You can apply it to gardening or building nuclear plants.

The idea that something doesn't even exist because the detractor can't see it is ludicrous ,and the onus is not on the expert to prove it.Not in a competitive business.Not if he isn't selling anything,and definitely not to a bunch of people who don't wanna hear it anyway.

Some people might be tempted to think that in a business with the high failure rate that this one has,conventional wisdom in a place like this doesn't really count for much......./B]

 

"I'm not saying fibs are not useful, I've got mountains of statistical data from years of studying these things, but the numbers and levels themselves have very little to do with profitable trading",

 

Unless the trader himself concludes otherwise.Your statement is an opinion,not a fact.It does not matter to anyone else how much research you did.The only research I trust is the research I did myself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless the trader himself concludes otherwise.Your statement is an opinion,not a fact.It does not matter to anyone else how much research you did.The only research I trust is the research I did myself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Discussing anything on a typical trading forum is always going to be problematic because there's a significant number of people who are looking for simple rule based solutions.

 

In order for this group of people to accept that "fibs work" you"ll need to come up with some fairly well defined back testable method, but of course, the moment you do that, you have the same curve fitting bias that I described in my moving average cross example, and the more degrees of freedom you introduce the worse its going to get.

 

On the next level, you have a smaller number of people who have started the process of trying to figure things out for themselves. These are the kind of people who might ask the question "do markets turn at fib retracement levels more frequently than for example levels chosen at random" or "do swings terminate at fib extension levels" and they might research this stuff at various levels of sophistication.

 

This is the sort of stuff you'd typically see in academic papers, inevitably the stats indicate that markets are no more likely to turn at fib levels than any other level, (despite the fact that I could immediately look at a chart and pull out hundreds of examples where they did). Although its interesting, its not really got a great deal to do with the subject of making money, its just one tiny part of a much larger whole

 

There's an academic paper floating around written by a couple of HSBC researchers who looked at fibs, and another looking at the accuracy of support and resistance levels quoted by various banks. If you look at those papers, the research methodology is perfectly well laid out, unambiguous, no room for misunderstanding etc. the results are crystal clear too. Those results arnt opinion, they are verifiable facts, and if you ran the same experiment you'd get the same results too.

 

You might not believe it, but I trade using completely random entries, but I could do the same thing using fib levels, and I'd get the same results, and I'd get the same results whatever I chose to use to select levels.

 

I'm not trying to discount fibs, they have the same strengths and weaknesses as any other TA,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zupcon - one of the problems with academic papers is that they apply the simple rules based systems that many traders look for.

So in order to test something does not work academics seem to often fall into the same trap many novice traders do.....and then hence declare it does not work....

Great if you are looking for a purely systematic system....or for laws of markets.

 

It does not mean a model/a structure for looking at the markets is valueless.

 

:2c: I think Mitsubishi is saying much the same thing as you are - there is more to it.....and simply applying X must happen when Y occurs is only the first step in trying to read a market and then manage a trade.

 

To me using fibs gives a pretty good platform from which to view the markets ( I prefer 50%) and then you have the issues of asking - how it got there, whats the context, do i need to rush in, what happens if this occurs, when will i know I am wrong.....it gives a structure rather than just having random entries.

 

Now if I am wrong on this and Mit thinks there is something more mystical about it well then I need an emoticon that shows me eating a hat.....

 

If you find the HSBC research paper please post it (I am a bit lazy today) thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zupcon - one of the problems with academic papers is that they apply the simple rules based systems that many traders look for.

 

That sums up that point better than I did...

 

So in order to test something does not work academics seem to often fall into the same trap many novice traders do.....and then hence declare it does not work....

Great if you are looking for a purely systematic system...

 

Exactly....

 

 

It does not mean a model/a structure for looking at the markets is valueless.

 

:2c: I think Mitsubishi is saying much the same thing as you are - there is more to it.....and simply applying X must happen when Y occurs is only the first step in trying to read a market and then manage a trade.

 

Each of us,i'm sure at some time has had an "aha" moment,where things suddenly make sense.Then you get confirmation going forward that you have found something that can be exploited.The nature of that realization differs from trader to trader.Having spent a very long time in the dark,and having to also contend with the other mental issues,before and during this process probably tends to make one very bias about what works and what doesn't.So when Zupcon says he enters randomly,i personally think whaaat?!.

But I guess if I think about that more....well,i don't know any other details in his trading plan.There's a discussion here about trading as if markets are random.Maybe Zupcon can shed a bit more light on how he views markets.

 

 

"To me using fibs gives a pretty good platform from which to view the markets ( I prefer 50%) and then you have the issues of asking - how it got there, whats the context,do i need to rush in, what happens if this occurs, when will i know I am wrong.....it gives a structure rather than just having random entries."

Some things seem quite obvious if someone wants to move from fibs 101. Eg if a market is grinding up slowly with shallow pullbacks,what are the most likely ratio's? If the trading range contracts,expansion is next,so what is the more probable extension target?

 

Now if I am wrong on this and Mit thinks there is something more mystical about it well then I need an emoticon that shows me eating a hat.....

 

You can keep your hat on;)

Yesterday I had 1617.7 as the probable high using one fib method and 0.618 retracement of 1654.1-1560.3= 1618.2...but the high was 1620.0. What would the academics say..hit or miss? If it's a swing trade from 1560.3 you left 2.3 points on the table out of 60 points.

Since so many traders appear to have such tight stops and targets and mainly daytrade do the academics make any allowances for this kind of issue?

 

So mystical would be stating in advance the high will be 1620.0 and making those kind of predictions every day.Can we do that?....no Does that make fibs useless? no (imo)

 

If you find the HSBC research paper please post it (I am a bit lazy today) thanks.

 

Would like to see it also

 

Now,i think this pullback is all done at 1560.3.Mathematically and in terms of wave counts I think it highly probable.Do I know that is correct for certain? no

Am I going to trade as if it is a certainty? yes

Lots of traders will know there is a gap on cash at 1628.9.Mathematically I have 1632.3..So that is the zone for the top of the next wave up.If the gap closes was it maths,a gap set up or something else? Do academics take account of these things?

The fibs (or whatever you use) gives you the probabilities and the trader weighs those probabilities and acts.He watches to see if the market is proving him correct or wrong and acts appropriately according to his trading rules.

Academics can't test that.It doesn't mean we shouldn't read what they have to say,but inevitably we'll base our conclusions on our own bias and experience.So the only definitive answer is a personal one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zupcon - one of the problems with academic papers is that they apply the simple rules based systems that many traders look for.

So in order to test something does not work academics seem to often fall into the same trap many novice traders do.....and then hence declare it does not work.....

 

I agree, there are some truly shocking examples of this, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence research. I suppose its not surprising, the people writing this stuff are not traders.

 

As a general rule, any academic paper that defines success or failure as a function of how much money a "system" gains or loses is probably not worth taking the time to read, and its a bit of a give away that the authors don't really get it.

 

Most of the better quality papers ask a question such as do reversals tend to occur at fib levels, or are markets equally as likely to reverse at arbitrarily selected levels. Even that approach is rather simplistic.

 

I read quite an interesting paper a few years ago where a couple of academic types tried to identify swing points algorithmically as the first stage of calculating fib levels. These guys had access to "traders" working within the same company, and of course, the traders always tended to disagree with the location of the mechanically identified swing points.

 

Eventually, these guys came to the conclusion that designing a mechanical method of identifying swing points was far more complex than they'd anticipated, and so they decided to skip that step and ask the traders to manually mark the swing points on the chart.

 

So a trader marks the swing points, they do the analysis and conclude fibs are no more significant than a randomly chosen level. At this point, the other traders claim that the swing points picked by the first guy where wrong.

 

So they get another trader to pick where he thinks the swing points are. They repeat the experiment, and get the same results

 

No matter which human trader selected the swing points, they always got the same result

 

Lets not forget, these guys where retrospectively cherry picking with the benefit of hindsight and they still couldn't make it work. In practice, the firm was using fib levels in their analysis and making money.

 

In the highly unlikely event you where a trader in this firms employment, and you'd developed an edge based on something as trivial as fib levels, I suspect you wouldn't be too keen on disclosing details to someone whose job was to encapsulate that knowledge into a few lines of code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great points zupcon.

I often think that either good traders dont know what particular reason is behind them making money.....rather than them willingly hiding the truth.....and maybe its a combination of many factors that is hard to pin point to just a simple entry exit rule.

No trader is likely to reveal his secret recipe especially if it seems either extemely simple - they will be thought of as redundant, or extremely off the planet - they will be thought of as a loony and easily dismissed when having a bad streak. (From memory there is an interview in Market Wizards where by a trader does not disclose too much for fear of being thought a freak)

 

The flipside to your post is those models that do make money in theory and yet blow up in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.......

I read quite an interesting paper a few years ago where a couple of academic types tried to identify swing points algorithmically as the first stage of calculating fib levels. These guys had access to "traders" working within the same company, and of course, the traders always tended to disagree with the location of the mechanically identified swing points.

.......

 

Tom DeMark found the same thing when he asked traders at his workshops to draw trendlines and got all kinds of variations.

 

And basically the reason why he came up with his trendlines "rules" - especially that they be drawn from swingpoints right to left and not the traditional left to right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading is one of those things that is simple and yet hard to do

... it is made hard to do because it is simple

... and the more complicated it is made then the more impossible it is to do.

 

IMO the 'simplicity' of trading lies in getting to the bottom of understanding

what makes prices move .... everything is based upon the auction process,

because without it there would be no market .... it is pure and that is where

it's simplicity lies....

when there are no more counter parties at a price level, then price moves to the next level.

 

If a Trader thinks that they understand this process, then they are doomed.

Only when they know that they know how price moves then can they move on to making money consistently.

 

Now let us move on to Fibs ... firstly the midpoint (50%) of the last price wave is important.

This does not mean that price will always hesitate at this point ... but it often does.

... too often to ignore in fact.

We all seem to understand that 50% is not a fibbo, but it seems to crop up in every fibbo thread ... I find this curious and disturbing.

 

We all seem to understand that price waves are not a precise science ... so imagine what happens when price approaches 50% and shudders under the impact of the Asks and the Bids as Traders fight out the next move ..... will price continue .. or will it turn thus ending this price wave.

 

Traders give this battle the title of 'consolidation' and define it by an upper and a lower point (the points turn into lines if the battle continues for a few bars or more.)

 

The upper and lower lines/points will be a few tics either side of the 50% line

and can easily be around the 40% and 60% mark of the previous price wave ...

in fact you could call them 62 and 38% ... or why not call them 61.8 and 38.2%

after all this is not a precise science.

 

 

If your understanding of price movement is more or less as I have just described

then I ask you ... what have fibs got to do with the trading auction process?

Edited by johnw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zupcon-some good points made.

 

Johnw- "If a Trader thinks that they understand this process, then they are doomed"

 

Why?

 

"Now let us move on to Fibs ... firstly the midpoint (50%) of the last price wave is important.

This does not mean that price will always hesitate at this point ... but it often does.

... too often to ignore in fact.

We all seem to understand that 50% is not a fibbo, but it seems to crop up in every fibbo thread ... I find this curious and disturbing]."

 

I'm curious why you find it disturbing but in "moving onto fibs" you tell us 50% is important-(I bet a few academics will "prove" it isn't)

I would say it's more disturbing for a person who is disturbed by the mention of 50% then uses this non fib level to "prove" fib levels are no better than random in a debate in which he suggests there is no place for 50%

But,apparently 50% which occurs "too often to ignore" is not near as dammit 47.5%,for if it were then it would be random...jeez gimme a break :crap:

 

And your logic here almost defies gravity....

 

"The upper and lower lines/points will be a few tics either side of the 50% line

and can easily be around the 40% and 60% mark of the previous price wave ...

in fact you could call them 62 and 38% ... or why not call them 61.8 and 38.2%

after all this is not a precise science."

 

I hardly know how to respond to that statement,... maybe rearrange the following letters -ollocksb

Not a precise science? hardly has a chance does it?,with that kind of analysis.:doh:

 

"what have fibs got to do with the trading auction process?"

 

Well,i must admit,initially I paused,much like price at a 0.618er,at this question,which on the face of it has the makings of the killer line in John's post...But stone me,if price just didn't blast its way through the temporary resistance when I thought about the years of research,and the questions it answered (for me) and I was forced to conclude that I don't give a damn what the answer is.:)

 

While jw continues his journey round the Fibonacci universe in his hot air balloon...

Anyone got an opinion (not you johnw :) ) why pivot points don't get such a hard time as fibs?.After all,they seem to me to be a completely arbitrary mathematical concoction...and if me and Johnw could agree on one thing,they got nothing to do with the "auction process"

 

Edit: jw knows i'm only kidding around.He can testify that he has had a good look under my hood a long while back on one of Randes' threads and will confirm there is nothing malicious there.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zupcon-some good points made.

 

Johnw- "If a Trader thinks that they understand this process, then they are doomed"

 

Why? ............................................

Edit: jw knows i'm only kidding around.He can testify that he has had a good look under my hood a long while back on one of Randes' threads and will confirm there is nothing malicious there.

;)

 

gm Mitzy,

 

If a Trader thinks that they understand this process, then they are doomed.

Only when they know that they know how price moves then can they move on to making money consistently.

 

Now here I am thinking just how far you have come since our wee chat on Rande's thread and now you go and spit the dummy on me....

 

disappointing Mitzy ..very very disappointing indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gm Mitzy,

 

If a Trader thinks that they understand this process, then they are doomed.

Only when they know that they know how price moves then can they move on to making money consistently.

 

Now here I am thinking just how far you have come since our wee chat on Rande's thread and now you go and spit the dummy on me....

 

disappointing Mitzy ..very very disappointing indeed.

 

Now come on John,you really need to dispense with this faux doctor/patient relationship you imagine we have and clarify what the hell you're talking about.

Maybe it's me.but help me get my head around how an auction process is intrinsically what price moves are based on but at the same time a trader is doomed if he thinks he understands it.

 

"Only when they know that they know how price moves then can they move on to making money consistently"

 

I actually fully agree with this line,just not in the context in which you appeared to place it.

Let's drop the 50% red herring non scientific issues for now and deal with the fact that your post is confusing and illogical (to me) so there's a good chance that others might like some further clarification also.

Or are you saying that your first post was the very best you can come up with? Now that

would be disappointing...though not very,very disappointing in the great scheme of things:roll eyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few too many words in that line.

 

Anytime you know something, by definition you know you know it.

 

D. Rumsfeld

 

Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.

 

Ya know!

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will get out of something (fibs, trendlines, whatever) as much as you put in - time, effort, brain cells used.

 

So... how does one get an edge in the market.Is it by seeing what other's are not seeing?

How does that come about?...time effort braincells..yes SunTrader states the obvious,because,apparently,the obvious isn't too obvious for some of the chuckle brothers here..

 

Is the market a series of waves or not? If you think it is,and you find EW doesn't work for you..what do you do? come here and make asinine remarks ..? decide that there are no waves after all? Or do you go SunTrader route?

 

Time is the most precious commodity.

I've occasionally made stupid remarks here..It did not illicit any further insight....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Fibonacci retracement and expansion tools on a daily basis on my analysis.......I am mainly using Elliott Waves Theory and Fibonacci retracement and expansion levels are mandatory for counting waves (for example if you are looking for a flat, then the b wave should retrace more than 61.8% out of the previous a wave, or if you're looking for an impulsive move, then at least one wave should be extended more than 161.8% out of the next longest waves within the waves in the direction of the potential impulse)...........so yes, I use them all the time and yes, I find them extremely usefull.......for those that don't think that, just ask questions and I will gladly ask here using examples with Fibo on charts as explained above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XAUUSD

 

38.2% retracement last major swing down

 

161.8% external retracement of wave b

 

38.2% expansion of wave a

 

100% projection of wave a from wave b bottom

(in other words wave c equals wave a)

 

And for extra measure a lin reg channel.

 

Tight fib zone has kept a lid on price moving higher - so far. It might very well break through it and if it does that will be a signal of strength and probably much more significant room to the upside to come.

 

Or - as I expect the fib zone holds, price resumes downtrend which signals the 6/28/13 $1180.75 bottom will be taken out.

5aa711f3208a4_xaufibs.thumb.png.04be463ecb4e77a6dbd36954c251a264.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True but that is like saying Barry Bonds was on steroids when he sets home run records.

 

He still would have been damn close without the "juice" though.

 

Break a rule or a law and there are consequences of course.

 

But SAC is an enormous trading firm that didn't get that way purely from insider info.

 

We can't say what Bonds would have done without the juice since we only know what he did with the juice. He apparently was not confident enough to play without steroids, so my guess is that he too felt that he wouldn't have done as well.

 

Same goes with SAC. If Steve Cohen could have done well without insider trading and breaking the law, then why bother? Again, he did it because he knew that he could not charge the fees he charged and remain as esteemed as he was without insider trading. As it turns out, Cohen is just another comedy act.

 

Oh, and there are more acts to follow. Citadel is next in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can't say what Bonds would have done without the juice .........

.

It works both ways for Bonds or Cohen. We don't how good or poorly SAC would have done without insider info.

 

Meantime since he is escaping jail time and even with a hefty fine and lifetime industry ban he will walk away with more money than either of us have. I'd take that comedy act any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Renko Full Throttle PRO IndicatorUSDCHF 1H Chart: Recorded Success rate is 95% in the last year with  
    • True. I can't say how much money I lost over the years on crappy signal providers. Take as much time as necessary googling on any one before spending your money there.
    • Date : 6th December 2019. Happy Non-Farm Friday – 6th December 2019.Happy Non-Farm Friday – The Dollar majors have remained comfortably within their respective ranges from yesterday, ahead of trade talks, NFP and the OPEC+ decision.Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.Click HERE to access the full HotForex Economic calendar.Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding on how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!Click HERE to READ more Market news. Andria Pichidi Market Analyst HotForex Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in FX and CFDs products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • GBPUSD Eyes Further Upside Pressure On More Bull Pressure   GBPUSD with the pair remaining biased to the upside more strength is expected in the days ahead. Support lies at 1.3100 area with a break below that level turning focus to the 1.3050 level. Further down, support comes in the 1.3000 level where a violation will shift focus to the 1.2950 level. Below here will open the door towards the 1.2900 level. On the upside, resistance is located at the 1.3200 with a break above there allowing for morel strength to build up towards the 1.3250 level. Further out, resistance stands at the 1.3300 level followed by the 1.3350 level. On the whole, GBPUSD retains its broader upside pressure.    
    • Yes, AMP is a good and reliable broker. Almost all FCM brokers and their IBs provide a similar service (the main difference is commission per side or per round, min deposit. Also, margin requirements, but commonly they are similar) Quantower platform allows to trade futures with AMP via Rithmic technology with full market depth data (!)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.