And I just copied and pasted what you wrote. Again, your claim that jaronimo's statement was rendered inaccurate by your follow up non-sequitor remains false. In addition, your additional tangential verbosity also failed to invalidate jaronimo's statement. Evidently, you have. - Spydertrader
That is true, and that is why the market goes down: it steps back to find the buyers. When it is stepping back, it deals with smarter and smarter buyers as these buyers are looking to buy the stock at a price which is lower than the price at the point where volume was high. If I were in such a situtation I would buy only after volume dries up during the retreat, and the prices started going up with more volume and higher price than the day before. I will not be the smartest guy in my buying, but I would know that I am close to the smartest guys. In addition, I know that no one consistently buys at the bottom and sells at the top---except as they say "liars".
Sorry but I do not understand the aim of your comments. Readers will judge what I wrote. Again, my thinking, as per my previous posts, is that bottoms and tops should involve a maximum number of sellers and buyers, with some exceptions (for instance on the way up, when price goes higher while volume is decreasing. In such case ,the top is when volume goes to the other extreme(almost dry).) Overall, extreme states of volume lead to bottoms and tops. And tops and bottoms involve high volume. Therefore maximum number of sellers at the bottom, and maximum number of buyers at the top. Check the charts to see whether what I wrote is true or not, but it is just my thinking. I do not mean to invalid or validate anyone's point of view.
Its really not that deep a post that I made that it requires so much thought. Its just a simple fact in my mind that helps me trade profitably. To me, trading is not a battle because I am very competitive and I would have to win that battle at any cost and every time I fought the battle. Thats impossible with the market. No matter what I do or think, I cannot make the market do something it does not want to do. I can only see what the market is doing and try to pull some money away by following and understanding what I am seeing at that moment. If I try to fight the market or impose my will it almost always costs me money. If I think of the market as a sale, or a simple auction, its much easier. If I see that the market is an auction and price goes up until nobody will buy anymore, it keeps me from buying because I realize that at this moment nobody will pay more than the current price. So that means I would be buying something that I could not sell for a profit. If I think that way, its very easy to walk away from a trade knowing that at this moment its a bad trade. Trading should be easy. By thinking about it the way I do, it makes it easy for me. If I use the battle scenario I tend to be in a more aggressive, winner-take-all attitude, and that costs me money. My goal in trading is not to conquer the market and leave it bleeding in defeat and begging for mercy. My goal is to take easy money from the market. I don't think the proper attitude is to look at the market and think "I can conquer this", I think the proper attitude is "If I buy now, can I sell it for more in a very short time because many people still want to buy here?" But thats just my opinion and what works for me may not work for everyone. Some people feel life should be unnecessarily complicated. If the war analogy works for you, more power to you! Just keep in mind that the highest award in real battle, the Congressional Medal of Honor, is usually awarded posthumously to its recipients.