In a market debate, Speaker A corrects Speaker B's claim that buy-side imbalances mean there are only buyers. Every trade needs both a buyer and a seller. Imbalances show which side is more aggressive, not which side exists.
Why is it an area of inefficient price action? Because during this buy side imbalance, there were only buyers in the market.
So that's. See, that's the problem with ICT traders. Maybe some of them are profitable, but when they start talking about market mechanics, they drive me fucking crazy. These people genuinely know nothing about how market works. If you claim that during an imbalance there's only buyers, you literally know zero about the markets. When an imbalance is formed, it means price used to be in a situation of balance, then got out of balance. And when this happens above the current price, there's all these sell orders, sell limits. So for price to reach up, aggressive orders or market orders have to buy and accept buying at higher and higher prices wherever there's a sell limit as liquidity. So for every buyer that comes into the market, there is a seller selling to that buyer. So saying that there was only buyers is just false? When there's a buyer, there's always a seller. It's just that buyers are willing to accept buying at worse and worse prices and accept to be slipped at higher and higher prices as long as they can buy because they need to, whether for fundamental reason or for rebalancing their option. Gamma exposure. But this is like what? Wow.
