with the previous hour's candle completed, Monday's low became a third-order Grimes pivot point - taking this as a signal would have resulted in closing the short 400 points below entry:
I find this interesting. of course this a sample of one so absolutely not representative. and there are probably easier ways to come to the same conclusion - e.g. selling after a pronounced up-move once two lower highs emerge, or breakthrough the approximate neckline of a h&s pattern, and buying once a low held a very close test and a re-test would have lead to the same here... also kinda would require 24/5 monitoring...
will try to work on a plan addressing these issues
this probably should have been ignored, but IMHO it was a new low. obviously jlz tried to help someone here, and referred to others to add emphasis to a point. I'm writing this because I actually asked for support in my earlier response, and I'm very pleased I'm not the only one who reacted to this post thoughtfully, so I think it would be pretty weak if I didn't speak up here.
That may make me look ridiculous, and like my tongue is now travelling through a bunch of cracks, but I don't give a **** (like I think you would not either).
I'm actually surprised that you @dmedin left it to this statement - usually you're significantly more effective in warning people of the hazards we face as retail punters IMHO - I think you definitely had stronger moments.
you know what I would find useful: having a separate, focused thread for insults - I'm sure by now the respective targets wouldn't mind (to not again say not give a ****), and other discussions could become - let's say "leaner".
I genuinely think I got a lot of valuable insights from many of your posts here, and I highly appreciate the honest feedback, and I also believe you have good intentions. I don't know about any history between you, jlz, THT, and Caseynotes. I further think you play an important role here in this forum and I look forward to more productive discussions with you.
But the post quoted above was a new low.
Spread bets and CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 76% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading spread bets and CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how spread bets and CFDs work, and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. Professional clients can lose more than they deposit. All trading involves risk.
The value of shares, ETFs and ETCs bought through a share dealing account, a stocks and shares ISA or a SIPP can fall as well as rise, which could mean getting back less than you originally put in. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
CFD, share dealing and stocks and shares ISA accounts provided by IG Markets Ltd, spread betting provided by IG Index Ltd. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Ltd (a company registered in England and Wales under number 04008957) and IG Index Ltd (a company registered in England and Wales under number 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Ltd (Register number 195355) and IG Index Ltd (Register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
The information on this site is not directed at residents of the United States, Belgium or any particular country outside the UK and is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person in any country or jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.