Trading can be compared more easily to chess than to… say, poker. That is because, as with chess, trades are made with all the previous moves in clear view.
Also, as in chess, all previous moves when trading have a certain degree of relevance and effect –
….moreover, each trading bar has a certain characteristic, a certain force, a certain power; as do individual chess pieces – the pawn versus the queen for example. The chart below asks: are there simularities to chess?
Trading bars don’t, of course, have nice horse’s heads on them, to let us easily differentiate between the knight and the less capable pawn. However, each trading bar is, in its own way, just as distinctive as the carved chess piece.
When we know these trading bar distinctions we have a chance at winning. But, as in chess, a game is not won by just knowing the capabilities of individual chess pieces. We need, more importantly, to know how the individual pieces (or bars in trading) support each other – the context – the confluence.