You always ask the best questions
There are probably a ton of different things that I could have meant when I was referring to professional money so I will focus in on the really central points
I think the reason why that thought crossed my posting threshold this afternoon is because of the visual pattern of movement in the top MMs on the bid side who were competing to accumulate at the .048-.052 level — they were patient, when their bids would get hit they would repopulate with different sized lots in an attempt to disguise and downplay their level of buying interest, and if their bids weren’t receiving any attention, they would gradually increase at regular time intervals in order to alert the sellers that they would be solid buyers up until the close, while simultaneously not wanting to seem too interested — the balance between those two competing visual display elements, both of which are utilized in conjunction to optimize purchase prices, seemed very high level — like it was somebody with an excessive amount of experience dealing in the optimal methodological principles of accumulation in a stock like CANB
That’s a little MMA right there — the biggest challenge to factorizing MMA like IPA is that it has been pretty tricky to reliably quantify many of these kinds of observations
But just because reliable objective quantification isn’t always readily achievable, that doesn’t automatically negate the possibility that MMA can be a very effective tool that possesses predictive validity
And at the time of that post, MMA said CANB was going higher from there into the close
Can the MMA at the close of today’s trading predict what will happen during tomorrow’s trading?
Or maybe just the trading around the open tomorrow?
Or is that better left to IPA Theory?
Or most likely some combination of the two, but assigning the % attribution to IPA vs MMA for a specific predictive question is where the science and the art of prediction really intersect
Sleek
