Buy because there are No More Sellers

From last weeks article (Return to First Principles)…

  • You must aim to BUY at areas where you know others will buy after you, because their buying will create the net orderflow or bullish pressure to drive prices higher, allowing you opportunity to profit.

  • You must aim to SELL at areas where you know others will sell after you, because their selling will create the net orderflow or bearish pressure to drive prices lower, allowing you opportunity to profit.

Or from the opposite perspective, this would be…

  • BUY because there are no more sellers.

  • SELL because there are no more buyers.

Let's look at a trade example.

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

buy because there are no more sellers

Lance Beggs


Written by

YourTradingCoach - Admin

4 Comments to “Buy because there are No More Sellers”

  1. Marcus says:

    Nice article and trade, I don’t think that I would have had the guts to take on part 2 as part 1 moved against you at first. I had a quick question too, the green and red dots on the LTFs, are those just S/H and S/L?

    • Lance Beggs says:

      It’s never easy to make any entry… there is always uncertainty. It helps though to keep the larger structure in mind. Small risk entries at the lower edge of the structure, after proving the market can’t go down, are worth taking. Experience helps. But it’s still never easy!
      The dots were an indicator which marked swing highs and lows. I trialled it for a while but then deleted it. For two reasons: (a) They don’t exactly match where I’d place them, and (b) They’re a distraction that takes the focus away from price.

  2. Alan says:

    Spending my Saturday rereading some blog articles. I love your reply above where you use the term “Small Risk”. Many use the wrong term and call it “Low Risk”, which implies high probabllity. Small risk is a much better term because it’s referring to the $ at risk. Thanks for all you do, Lance!

    • Lance Beggs says:

      Thanks Alan. Yeah, it’s incredibly common to see “low risk” used in the wrong context. And I must admit I’m guilty of that myself from time to time. If you searched the archives I have no doubt you’ll find it occurring quite a bit. I’d like to assume that the others using it in this way, like me, are actually aware of the difference. And that it’s simply lazy writing.

      Another that annoys me (maybe it’s just me) is when I hear or read “a 2:1 risk reward ratio” when what they actually mean is a “2:1 reward to risk ratio”. Again, I know what they’re saying. They’re just being lazy.

      Cheers,
      Lance.

Leave a Reply

Message

Please prove you're a person: Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.