Regarding entanglement theory, the judgment of buying and selling points cannot be separated from divergence. Let’s take the most typical a+A+b+B+c trend as an example to explain the problem of divergence. Note that not all a+A+b+B+c forms are divergent.

First of all, there is no trend or divergence. When it is said that there is a divergence in a+A+b+B+c, it must be that a+A+b+B+c is a trend. A trend means that A and B are centers at the same level. Otherwise, it can only be seen as a shock of the larger center among them. For example, if the level of A is greater than that of B, there is a+A+b+B+c=a+A+(b+B+c), and a and (b+B+c) are some small levels around the center A. fluctuation. In this way, there is no divergence, and at most it is a consolidation divergence. Of course, for the last center B, divergence and consolidation divergence have many similarities. Using ambiguity, b and c can be regarded as the secondary fluctuations of B. But ambiguity is just multiple angles. We cannot treat b and c as secondary fluctuations of B, and forget that a+A+b+B+c is a trend and the levels of A and B are the same. Ambiguity is not ambiguity, and it cannot be divided in any way. This must be emphasized repeatedly.

Secondly, c must be a sub-level, that is to say, c contains at least a third type of buying and selling point for B. Otherwise, it can be regarded as a small-level fluctuation in the center of B, which can be used Deal with consolidation and divergence. It is possible that b is smaller than the sub-level, and the strongest one is the continuous gap. In other words, b cannot be larger than c in level. For example, if b is a sub-level and c has a continuous gap, even if c is not completed, it will eventually continue to a sub-level, but the possibility of c being a divergence is very small.

Also, if a+A+b+B+c is rising, c must hit a new high; if a+A+b+B+c is falling, c must hit a new low. Otherwise, even if c contains the third type of buying and selling point of B, the sub-level shock around B can still be judged by consolidation and divergence. Analyzing the interior of c, since c contains the third type of buying and selling point of B, c contains at least two sub-level centers, otherwise it will not meet the condition that the sub-level pulls back and does not return to the center after the sub-level leaves. The relationship between these two centers forming a sub-level trend is the most standard and common situation. In this case, you can continue to apply the form of a+A+b+B+c to conduct sub-level analysis to determine the internal structure of c. The problem of divergence in level trends forms a state similar to an interval set, so that the subsequent divergence can be positioned more accurately.

If you don’t understand the central problem for a while, you can use MACD to assist in judging back laxity. This is a method that is not absolutely accurate, but is more convenient and easy to understand. Just use this method and it is enough. Cope with normal situations. It must be noted that due to the limitations of MACD itself, to accurately judge divergence, one still has to start from the center itself. However, using MACD is easier for ordinary people to understand and grasp, and this is good enough. Just use MACD to assist in judgment. Even if you don't know the center clearly, as long as you can clearly distinguish the three segments A, B, and C, the accuracy rate should be above 90%. And with the upper center, that is 100% absolute, because it can be logically proven using pure mathematical reasoning.

First of all, divergence also has level issues. A 1-minute level divergence will not create a big top at the weekly level in most cases, unless the daily line also Dorsal laxity occurs. However, there must be a reversal after the occurrence of laxity, and there is no room for negotiation. Some people have to ask, how much has been reversed? That's very simple, until a new sub-level buying and selling point reappears. Since all buying and selling points can ultimately be classified as the first type of buying and selling points at a certain level, and divergence is closely related to this type of buying and selling point, it can be said that any reversal must include a certain level of divergence. Strict methods can prove the following theorem:

"Divergence - Buying and Selling Point Theorem": Any divergence will inevitably create a certain level of buying and selling points, and any level of buying and selling points must originate from a certain level. Trend divergence.

Let’s not talk about the proof of this theorem for the moment. In other words, as long as you see a certain level of divergence, it must mean there is a reversal. But reversal does not mean forever. For example, an upward divergence on the daily line creates a selling point. After falling back, a downward divergence appears at 5 minutes or 30 minutes to create a buying point. Then starting from this buying point, you can start again. It is normal for stocks to rise or even reach new highs.

To use MACD to judge divergence, there must first be two trends in the same direction. There must be a consolidation or reverse trend connection between the same trends. These three segments are called segments A, B, and C respectively. Obviously, the center level of B is larger than the center levels of A and C. Otherwise, A, B, and C would be connected into one big trend or big center. Before segment A, there must be a center at the same level as B or higher, and it cannot be a trend that goes against A, otherwise these three segments would be in one big center.

To summarize the above, the premise of using MACD to judge divergence is that segments A, B, and C are in a big trend, where A already has a center before, and B is another center of this big trend. , this center will generally pull the yellow and white lines of MACD (that is, DIFF and DEA) back to near the 0 axis. When the trend type of segment C is completed, the area of ??the MACD pillar corresponding to it (looking up at the red pillar, looking down at the green pillar) is smaller than the area corresponding to segment A. At this time, it forms a standard divergence.

Note that it is not necessary to show the full area of ??the MACD pillar. Generally, when the extension of the pillar slows down, multiply the area that has appeared by 2, which can be regarded as the area of ??the segment. Therefore, in actual operation, there is no need to discover the divergence after falling back. The judgment will come out in the final stage of rising or falling. Generally, you can sell to the highest price and buy near the lowest price.

Generally speaking, a standard two-center rise will show such a pattern on MACD, that is, in the first section, the yellow and white lines of MACD go up from below the 0 axis, and on the 0 axis While staying at the top, a corresponding first center is formed, and a second type of buying point is formed. After breaking through the center, the yellow and white lines of MACD also pull up quickly. This is often the most powerful section, and all trends extend, etc. , and the so-called indicator passivation that MACD goes around often appear in this section. This section usually ends in a sub-level divergence, and then enters the formation process of the second center. At the same time, the yellow and white lines of MACD will gradually Return to near the 0 axis, and finally, continue to break through the second center. The yellow and white lines of MACD and the pillars repeat the previous process, but this time, the yellow and white lines cannot reach a new high, or the area or extended height of the pillars can Breaking through new highs and diverging, this ends the rising process of the two centers. Understand this truth, and the past and future lives of most stocks can be known early on.

(To obtain more institutional views & internal reference for interpretation, please follow the official WeChat account of CIC Education)