However, in the actual trend, there are not a few cases that are not innovative but the trend turns, especially individual stocks. In the three stages of ABC, C did not hit a new high, but MACD showed a standard deviation trend, that is, the trend did not hit a new high, and the indicators did not hit a new high. This situation has also been explained many times in entanglement theory, for example:
"Similarly, in the big level, if there is no new low, it can constitute a buying point similar to the second buying point. On MACD, it has a similar performance when it goes backwards. The yellow and white lines are pulled back up and down on the 0 axis, and the area of the latter pillar is smaller than that of the previous one. "
In this case, from the perspective of entanglement theory, there is no primary buying point at this level, and correspondingly, the buying point formed by the low points with similar divergence is called secondary buying point. The reason for this situation is that the reverse force is too great, which leads to the weakening of the original trend, the third wave of trend can not hit a new low, and the original trend ends. So the end of this trend, the real end is the lowest point of A or the lowest point of C? In hindsight, the lowest point of A is of course the lowest point of the whole trend, but this lowest point does not have the operability of this level. On the other hand, the lowest point of c has the analytical nature that the kinetic energy of the original trend decreases due to this kinetic energy depletion. I think the real end point of this trend similar to deviation is the lowest point of C. We can call this deviation a deviation or kinetic energy exhaustion.
In the judgment of deviation, it is inevitable to analyze consolidation deviation. It must be noted that the consolidation deviation mostly occurs during a period of central shock or trend reversal, which is particularly effective. In addition, we must pay attention to the situation that consolidation is converted into the third trading point.
Finally, in the judgment of retrogression, I have to say a problem called retrogression, so does this problem exist? In fact, this problem does not exist at all. The so-called retracement is nothing more than that the MACD indicator does not fall after deviating, and then forms one or more deviations. Understanding consolidation, becoming an extension of the third kind of buying point, and judging the level will naturally solve this problem.
Backward involves dynamics, and all dynamic problems are inseparable from the relationship between size and level. Before the large-scale energy is exhausted, the small-scale obeys the large-scale energy, while the large-scale energy is exhausted, and the small-scale will surely lead the trend of the large-scale to a new life.
In my grading system, because the grading standard is that the MACD index of the period should be drawn near the 0-axis, the two stages of comparative strength must be the two-stage trend connecting the periodic structure, so its effectiveness is self-evident. Due to the existence and flexibility of grade transfer, the seemingly existing back-to-back problem can be effectively solved. It has not hit a new high or a new low, and the trend has turned a corner, which requires everyone to understand the dynamic principle of the inflection point of slip back. There are only two forces in the market, bulls and bears, and their forces are changing. If you understand the ups and downs of long and short forces in the market, you will naturally understand the retrogression.