so the challenge failed i guess, because op doesn’t want to go on trading
Is the contradiction you refer to a correlation between E-U and USD-CHF?
Thanks
The contradiction is that the market doesn’t follow C’s predictions.
CERTAINTY, your actually gonna leave?
A FINAL reminder! BigMoney will take EURUSD above 1.3911 with a strong PUSH!!!
That move is in the making. Don’t be fooled by the ups and downs! Players are coming into the market gradually.
I will not be here to discuss the move. Just remember, I said IT!!!
You have already said IT… and IT was a loser
1.3911. IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
i DON’T TRADE STOPLOSS but your competition asked for one! So, I gave them onE!
Understand how I trade, not the way you want me to trade!
since you trade without SL, I guess you are holding those shorts for 1.3350 target?
yes, I agree. it will probably take out the resting stops above 1.3913 from 10/16’s high during Friday’s London session.
Can you confirm the following in regards to your contradiction the way I see it: I’m assuming you are using 2 highly correlated pairs to do so. Since you trade the Fiber, your are probably using the Cable for comparison. In looking at a daily overlay chart on 9/22 the cable made a lower low, while the Fiber did not. On 10/3, when the trend was reversing, Cable made a higher low, while Fiber made a lower low- that right there is your contradiction/ divergence. since it was on the daily chart, it could be quite a run up
What is in your head? I said I trade using pending orders! Those can be deleted anytime! JESUS CHRIST!!!
Check the first post of this thread. I stated it clearly.
I have lost all respect(i had) for you, Sir!!!
Hi Certainty
Can you trade for clients in managed account please ?
Thank you
looks lite 1,3911 is lining up…
Yeap, looks like Certainty was right. Maybe its time for all the naysayers to relax a bit and let this man do what he does. Enough with the nagativity, i understand people are looking out for others but Certainty has put himself on the line and has proved that he knows what he is doing. I dont see anyone else able to stand this type of pressure and still make correct calls. Awesome Job, keep up the good work.
I personally think that it is pretty easy to be right if one makes a bland claim with no timescale attached, so even if Price does now hit 1.3911 that proves nothing about the strategy. I am not making a comment on the strategy overall (not enough of it was posted to enable me to do that) but given that CERTAINTY stated that Price would move to 1.3911 and that Price would move to 1.3350, it was a pretty safe bet that those predictions would come true, they obviously both would at some point. The questions raised were simply over the detail of the strategy needed to enable those predictions to be traded.
Anyway, I would not hold out hope for CERTAINTY keeping up the good work as you hoped: from looking at his/her screen name it appears that CERTAINTY has been banned.
Ummm, he steadfastly called for a trip to 1.33 from 1.3740 first, and told everybody to sell. Then changed his tune after it hit 1.39 the first time.
So right one out of two? A coin toss would do that for you.
Eventually both calls will be right. Price is an oscillator.
I have read the posts here and I think you are wrong.
His position was simple: For price to go below, 1.335, It must go above 1.3911 first, clear contradictions above that level and then descend.
So, the direction was stated clearly.
I think the dude is banned! I just noticed that.
Interesting thread.
Ok, so where is the market going from here? Do you have any clue?
Can you further explain the meaning on contradiction, what you use to determine a contradiction, and where you see a contradiction above 3911?
Thanks
Me think, you should send this to certainty. I am sorry, but I don’t know either.
Well, I read CERTAINTY’s posts on this subject over a number of threads ‘real time’ with the live chart up to refer to, and I don’t think that your simplified hindsight view of things reflects how things played out, with the various contradictions, inconsistencies and edited-after-the-event posts, so in context I think that you are wrong.
But I’m sure we’re both happy going forwards believing ourselves to be right, so happy to leave that there.
Yes, I pointed out that CERTAINTY was banned in the closing line of my previous post, the one you quoted.
ST