The surge arrived as expected, and the pullback range didn't deviate from predictions, with a high-low spread of roughly $40. What appears to be a perfect forecast, however, conceals a pile of interesting questions.
Can the market actually be predicted? That's the premise. But even if it can be, noise objectively exists. How precise are market makers' stop-loss executions? Is the opposing force really driven by just one factor? And there's the overlooked liquidity impact—the subtle relationship between price fluctuations and position conversions.
How do holders trapped in losses ultimately become profit-takers? How deep is the transformation logic here? It sounds simple in theory, but to truly understand it? Not so easy. Details determine everything, especially in a market where every fraction counts.
A $40 difference and you think you've nailed the prediction? Ha, nice talk.
Details? Man, details are the knife the whales use to cut retail traders.
The logic behind being trapped and breaking even is actually just one sentence: you got lucky.
All this noise and liquidity impact stuff? Sounds hardcore but it just means the market is too dirty.
Stop-loss precision? Market makers have already figured us out.
The surge arrived as expected, and the pullback range didn't deviate from predictions, with a high-low spread of roughly $40. What appears to be a perfect forecast, however, conceals a pile of interesting questions.
Can the market actually be predicted? That's the premise. But even if it can be, noise objectively exists. How precise are market makers' stop-loss executions? Is the opposing force really driven by just one factor? And there's the overlooked liquidity impact—the subtle relationship between price fluctuations and position conversions.
How do holders trapped in losses ultimately become profit-takers? How deep is the transformation logic here? It sounds simple in theory, but to truly understand it? Not so easy. Details determine everything, especially in a market where every fraction counts.