7.27 morning — Erbing



After Erbing initially surged to test the 1966 high point, it was pressured and fell back; the upper resistance range has already been validated.

From the order-flow trend, it’s not hard to see that after the price made a new high, the bulls couldn’t sustain their push. Subsequent highs kept stepping down, and rebound follow-through has been poor.

The market is currently in a range-bound back-and-forth consolidation. Each rebound runs into sell pressure, and upside momentum continues to weaken.

For the short term, the rebound-for-short idea still holds, and we should place short positions based on the resistance overhead.

Entry zone: short around 1970—1990

First target: 1900, second target: 1880#夏日创作营
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
MFIAnalyst
· 5h ago
Follow this round of short positions; target is 1900 first.
View OriginalReply0
ATRCaptain
· 5h ago
It still feels like a ranging market. Short positions have a higher win rate in the 1970-1990 range, but you also need to guard against false breakouts. Keep position sizing under control.
View OriginalReply0
CycleWatcher
· 6h ago
From the order book, it’s true that the bulls are struggling—the highs are gradually getting lower, and every rebound is an opportunity for short positions. Still, you should watch the 1880 support below; if it breaks, the sell-off could accelerate. Set your stop-loss in advance and don’t hold the position hoping.
View OriginalReply0
FundingSentinel
· 6h ago
Bro, your analysis is solid—1966 pressure is critical. Momentum is currently lacking, and the rebound has no strength. I’ll short along with you.
View OriginalReply0
NekoValidator
· 7h ago
Indeed, every time it rebounds, it gets smashed—there’s nothing wrong with the bears’ thesis.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pinned