Hi everybody!
I guess this topic has already been discussed around here, but because it is hard to to gather all information on it, and all points of view, I would enjoy to know what you think about this.
Put simply, I know that we / you all broadly think that to enter in the market before a moving event / news is a gamble game and highly risky...
But would that not make sense to not bet, when entered right before a news / event, or shortly before (could a few hours), on the outcome of the news, but on what moves could be created from the effect of the news.
Ex.: the effect of a news can have a simple impact, sometimes very violent, but sometime without any real long term implication. Indeed often the price reverses its course, start to go nowhere, etc.
But if we combine that if the outcome of the news is x, then it could bring this market to x. To combine the effect of the news and to then be pushed on a much bigger move.
I know many of you, while reading this lines, must think "so why not enter right after the news...?"
And the answer would be simply because very often the reaction is quick as light from other participants, who have much better execution capabilities and technologies.
So it reduced considerably the odds to profit form a favorable move on our side. And by playing the "game" as I am exposing now, it could permit one to still play the game while enhancing the odd, simply by entering before the big participants.
But again, I am not saying to gamble and bet on just the news, but ti figure out that when a market has a good dynamic, and if we understand that the move could go further, when a news is released that could have favorable impact on this move, then we can take the shot to enter a bit before the event, or even right before, depending of the case / scenario.
While common wisdom say it is gambling, I believe at some level, it is still a way to play the game, if done carefully and with a good understanding on how it works, and how to figure out the big picture.
What do you think?
Thank you to read this few lines,
Alex
I guess this topic has already been discussed around here, but because it is hard to to gather all information on it, and all points of view, I would enjoy to know what you think about this.
Put simply, I know that we / you all broadly think that to enter in the market before a moving event / news is a gamble game and highly risky...
But would that not make sense to not bet, when entered right before a news / event, or shortly before (could a few hours), on the outcome of the news, but on what moves could be created from the effect of the news.
Ex.: the effect of a news can have a simple impact, sometimes very violent, but sometime without any real long term implication. Indeed often the price reverses its course, start to go nowhere, etc.
But if we combine that if the outcome of the news is x, then it could bring this market to x. To combine the effect of the news and to then be pushed on a much bigger move.
I know many of you, while reading this lines, must think "so why not enter right after the news...?"
And the answer would be simply because very often the reaction is quick as light from other participants, who have much better execution capabilities and technologies.
So it reduced considerably the odds to profit form a favorable move on our side. And by playing the "game" as I am exposing now, it could permit one to still play the game while enhancing the odd, simply by entering before the big participants.
But again, I am not saying to gamble and bet on just the news, but ti figure out that when a market has a good dynamic, and if we understand that the move could go further, when a news is released that could have favorable impact on this move, then we can take the shot to enter a bit before the event, or even right before, depending of the case / scenario.
While common wisdom say it is gambling, I believe at some level, it is still a way to play the game, if done carefully and with a good understanding on how it works, and how to figure out the big picture.
What do you think?
Thank you to read this few lines,
Alex