Hurry up, hurry up, while the market hasn't reached the arrow position yet, come out quickly, two line traders. I don't need you to tell me this position is a resistance level. I don't even know who researched this stuff; what era is it now? It's like Musk is researching artificial intelligence every day, while these people in the country are fixated on internet finance, constantly drawing lines for you in the live channel. Foreigners are researching whether after drawing the lines, can they break through the resistance level, while we suckers are always studying how to help other suckers draw lines. After drawing the lines, whether it can hold without breaking is like a pretty one limited by rare earths, and we can never figure out whether it can actually break through.

This indicator, including about a dozen Fibonacci formulas, was created with a single purpose in mind from the very beginning, which is to use it for reversal trades after reaching a certain position. For example, during a downtrend, if the price rebounds to the resistance level, it's a signal to short; conversely, during an uptrend, if the price retraces to the resistance level, it clearly indicates a long position. You can ponder this, but when a new indicator is developed in a market where it's originally uncertain whether it will rise or fall, and then one forces the study of an indicator, and after that, adds conditions like 'if it breaks' or 'if it doesn't break', isn't that just creating problems for oneself?
You either tell the suckers that at this position they must short with a stop loss. Don't add drama for yourself. If it breaks this position, then look for a long; if it doesn't break, then look for a short. What a joke, right? You're the only one who knows how to do things, huh! Who does that?