/biz/ - Business & Finance

>are we going back down
Yes, but it will go back up even higher than it falls, so buy the dip

>>23408096
might sell a small amount and buy back at the gap

Theres unfilled gaps all the way to 3.6k.
11.4, 9.6, 7.6, 3.6

Cant believe theres people unironically believing in fucking retarded internet voodoo in 2020 you are all destined to be poor

>>23408168

B-b-b-but cme gap!

>>23408078
>>23408200
Only gap that matters is the gap in the pussy where you coom.>>23408078

>>23408078
I swear one faggot posted about this cme gap bullshit and all you wannabe TA fags hopped onto it. This is crypto, all that matters is what CZ and his accomplices want to happen, meaning we have zero control

>>23408147
9.6 it got close to fill but still worrisome
7.6 and 3.6 too small will probably ignore

>>23408241
good one coomer
>>23408260
99% of gaps get filled retard go through them all and you'll see

>>23408309
You don't know how it works and that cme is less than 1% of btc volume.
They get filled because of bitcoin's natural volatility, it always go up and down wildly and it was like this years before cme.
In 2014 it went from 1200 to 200, if cme gaps existed at this time you fags would have said it was the reason for the crash.

Pro tip : some day btc will go to 0, all cme gaps, 100% of them will be filled.

>>23408396
>some day btc will go to 0
lmfao

>>23408409
Might be in 10 or 2000 years or because of the universe heat death, whatever, they'll all get filled.

>>23408427
it'll still be worth something to the void lords

>>23408396
Then explain why most of them act as support?

>>23408445
There are dozens of price supports, some are close to cme gaps obviously.
Give me one financial benefit for anyone to close the CME gap. There's no secret treasure to unlock when you get there.

>>23408309
we can easily hit $100k before we fill that

we'd be going back to that level regardless of whether or not there's a gap you absolute dipshit

>>23408882

>>23408168
lol

>>23408078
gaps are are meme invented by CT cucks trying to sound smart

>>23408078
>caring this much about short-term price action.
ngmi

>>23408109
Is it worth it in case you are wrong?

>>23408078
We'll scam wick down there sure.

>>23408466
Traders and, by extension, algorithms and bots don’t care about whether they’re long or short. They care about being on the right side of a big move.

There is an intangible benefit of testing the gaps so to speak, so whether a mean reversion bias or just random chance gets the price a close enough discount towards the unfilled gap, actual, intentional forces are compelled to push the price the rest of the distance.

Now, this may or may not pay off, but the point isn’t to make money in this singular action. It’s like an intended loss for the sole purpose of gathering information. Insurance, cost of doing business in a way.

Because how the price reacts to this gap test gives them actionable insight into which side to truly double down on. As for “them” it’s not a single entity in most cases. All market participants’ intentions swirls into emergent trend phenomena that dictates prices to a very real extent. Sorta like the hivemind narrative that is observed on certain Reddit circles.

Also think of it like this: if had to commit millions or billions into an asset in which I lack information about the price dimension, the timing dimension, or both, then it’s a relatively small cost to pay to fill gaps in order to obtain direction as well as magnitude, or confidence in your move. (Again, it’s a meta action, not a singular operation.)

>>23410007
So buy or sell then?