Generally speaking (agnostics don't look), we always think that the development of things is regular, and what we are looking for is the law behind the development of things. For example: I think it will go up, or I think it will go down, all of which need logical support.
Maybe someone will say: I don't know, I just feel. In fact, I think this stream of consciousness also contains two possibilities: one is really completely blind; The other is actually the previous cognition. There are too many historical quotes, and similar situations may have signals of rising or falling before. For example, some friends have the feeling that "if they rise more, they will fall, and if they fall more, they will rise". Trading with this feeling is another matter, right? There is actually causal logic behind this feeling, but maybe it is not abstract.
However, no matter what the situation, I always believe that if the basis of a person's trading operation is always: I don't know, I just feel, then such a person has little chance of success. Maybe you are like a static clock, you can always set it twice a day, but you are still a bad clock and a bad trader.
On the daily dimension, I think there are many positions, because the breakthrough is natural. Maybe you are bearish because you feel the pressure, which is also logical.
So in this position, or in the daily dimension, I am bullish (wait and see without holding a position), so what is the logic of bearish or short? If so, what is it?
In fact, I believe that most people's transactions are logical, so the question is, why are there still many people losing money? I think, on the basis of logic, we should consider these points again:
Being logical does not mean that your logic is correct.
A friend said to me, "let's go swimming." Look at the good bodies of those swimmers on TV! " However, the perfect figure of professional swimmers is not because they fully exercise, but on the contrary: they become excellent swimmers because they have such a figure. Their bodies are a selection criterion, not the result of their exercise. Actually, let's go to the swimming pool. Short people have many short legs and short legs.
Such logic is naturally wrong logic, and wrong logic will make you make wrong choices and lead to wrong results.
Whether the logic is correct needs to be verified.
The so-called "bold idea, careful verification": I think it is time to go up (down) after getting out of this pattern, or such indicators (such as KDJ overbought), such volume and price positions (such as lightening positions) and so on. So, does your logic and causality really hold? It's simple. Use history to verify. If a lot of historical data support your hypothesis, then you can think that your logic is valid, at least in the past.
Correct trading logic is inseparable from the support of probability.
This sentence can also be explained as follows: correct logic is based on acceptable probability.
If you want to find a 100% successful trading method, then you may never find it. Transaction itself is full of uncertainty (uncertainty itself is a logical law, isn't life the same? ), even if your verification is 70%, 80% or even higher, you may still fail in the current transaction, but I believe that if your logic really stands the test of history, then you will have a greater chance of success if you persist.
How to verify the second point and the probability statistics of the third point will be discussed separately in the future.
If you are still groping hard on the road of trading and constantly hitting a wall, I think you might as well take the first step: write down your operating reasons before each transaction, which will definitely help you! The reason for this operation is actually your logical judgment. As for whether it is right or not, we can naturally find a way to verify it.
Of course, all this has a premise: you have to believe that history will repeat itself, and you also have to believe that history will not simply repeat itself, otherwise, you can completely ignore what I said.