The problem is not how many people use it, but how obvious the system is. If everyone enters the same level, it is easy to hunt.
The problem is not how many people use it, but how obvious the system is. If everyone enters the same level, it is easy to hunt.
I meant whether the institutionals look at the number of people or the total volume of money operated.
They always look at the volume, not how many traders are behind it. They don�t care if it�s a single trader with $501,000 or a thousand with $1001. Money moves the market, not names.
Even if they are many with small accounts, the danger is that they all enter the same technical levels. That generates attractive liquidity zones to be hunted.
It's simple: the more predictable your entry point is, the easier it will be for big players to clean you up.
So, are very popular systems doomed to fail?
Exactly, which works well today, when it becomes massified, it stops working, which is why banks constantly change their models.
Not necessarily. There are robust strategies that survive decades, but they are often more complex and adaptive, not simple media crossing systems.
That's why internet selling systems usually last a short time. When all fools buy them, they become useless.
So a manual system has more life expectancy than an automatic one?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote