(snips sprinkled)
1) chained order is a little bit of an additional concept (...)
2) example of incremental / step setting in the $8k price territory using a ball park of $500 buy/sell increments. (...)
(And so on. A beautiful, detailed explanation in language dry enough to taste delicious given its origin.)
So you
can write in an orderly manner when you give up your urban stream of consciousness style. Next piña is on me.
You remove the "other side" order at the point you just filled, otherwise they will cancel out for sure.
I don't think that "remove" is the correct word choice. I find that when I am playing this whole system and it is going smoothly, then I am never really removing anything, but I am just adding. Once a buy order executes, then I add a sell order, and once a sell order executes, then I add a buy order.
On that same point, I tend to let the price come to me, and rarely do I tweak to reset the order and to expedite the process. Sometimes, I will change a whole bunch of orders at once which is a kind of removal and replace, but that is not part of the regular practice when the practice is "flowing" then I am only adding orders, not removing orders.
(...)
I am not sure if your example helps.... O.k. we are going with a $500 increment, but if my order to sell at $8,500 executes, then I am not removing anything because I just add a buy order at $8k (because my previous sell had executed at $8k, and I could not do anything until either the next $8.5k sell order executed or the next $7.5 buy order executed. If the price had gone down rather than up, then my $7.5k order would have filled and I would have set a sell order at $8k rather than the buy order that I ended up setting because of the $8.5k sell order that ended up executing first.
Probably, we are saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
Yes, I think I got your system right, but I pictured it as a double (buy/sell) ladder of orders already set up in advance. You watch them fill and remove debris/fix things. Like your buy at $8k is already there (it became relevant after selling at $8.5k).
3) The whole system is not a wash because you are able to either buy more BTC with the same amount of money or accumulate more money by the size of your orders. If you keep the exact BTC amounts, then you accumulate dollars; if you keep the same dollar amounts then you accumulate BTC (or you can do some combination of the two). Recently, I have been working on accumulating more
BTC with my orders.
On the other hand, I kind of considered this in the background but honestly wasn't sure - I didn't run the numbers to check, so I kept my mouth shut with jojo69, who used the word "mostly" just a couple of positions out of place.
OK, so for the most part, they still cancel out, you are just harvesting (mostly, ed.) at reversals.
If it runs straight up 4 sells, then straight down 4 buys you (mostly) only have one "win"
Well yes - mostly. The effect of trades in middle points starts small and builds up, as JayJuanGee explained