Why is it still losing money to reverse a losing trading strategy?

Since retail investors rely on their own analysis to lose 90% of their money, if I make the opposite order every time after the analysis is completed and the order is confirmed, will it be profitable in the long run?

This question is obviously not valid. This is an idea of ​​using retail investors as a reverse indicator. In fact, most of the trading systems based on this idea are not established.
It is actually not difficult to find such a reverse indicator. If you are a strategist who often deals with various models, you will find many similar reverse indicators or reverse systems. After a large number of tests, it has been shown that for all models that have been losing money steadily in the long run, if the opening and closing signals are reversed, according to the subject's assumption, then a good model with positive return expectations will be obtained. But in fact, the reverse model is still a model of negative return expectations.
If you look for reverse indicators and do the opposite of the reverse indicators or the reverse system, you can get a long-term stable model of positive return expectations, then for the miners, for the strategists, this bowl of rice It's also too easy: find a group of rookies, write a bunch of bad models, and then reverse the opening and closing signals in the models.
Trading is not as difficult as most people imagine, nor is it as stupid as most people imagine.

In general, in the trader structure, principle advantages are greater than strategic advantages, strategic advantages are greater than operational advantages, and operational advantages are greater than risk control advantages. The advantage of risk control is greater than the advantage of bravery, that is to say, it is greater than all stupid retail investors.

If the system of positive return expectations is based on reverse indicators, then first of all , in terms of principle advantages, there is a big fatal flaw: this kind of stupid system that you seem to be a reverse indicator, you don’t know what At that time, you will make a lot of money, or even make a lot of money for a period of time. Then the system that works against it will obviously lose its position during this period.
Secondly , in terms of strategic advantages, there are also fatal flaws. A truly excellent strategy lies in a deep understanding of the market's market data structure and trading rules, and based on this rule, it can last for a long time and the system's robustness can be high. Then, a system based on a reverse indicator is based on statistics, not on the structural laws of the market itself. Systems based on statistics will face the risk of being ravaged by black swans.
Again , in terms of operational advantages, there are also great flaws. This is a completely passive strategy. Put your own profits in the hope that others will continue to lose money. Then if it is a wave of stupid market, a bubble bull market where everyone makes money, and it goes against the retail investors, then how much money will be enough to pay.
Finally , in terms of risk control advantages, this kind of system is also a relatively bad system. If a retail investor suddenly happens to keep making money in a cycle, do you follow or not, do you stop the loss or stop the loss? If other risk control factors are added, it will become a profit-making system purely based on risk control. In fact, for pure risk control strategies, you can go long on sunny days and short on cloudy days. There is no need to keep staring at the signals sent by retail investors.
Those who can understand the advantages of principle, strategy, operation, and risk control, and those who hold a knife in every floor, are qualified to eat this bowl of rice. In order to outperform the investor structure.

There are 100 sheep, 90 of which are eaten by wolves. There is a sheep who thinks he is very smart and thinks that sheep are always eaten by wolves. This is a negative indicator. So this sheep thinks that as long as he is against the sheep, he can eat the sheep like a wolf. It ignores a basic fact: sheep eat grass and wolves eat meat.
Why can wolves eat sheep, why can't sheep eat wolves? Because in the food chain structure, wolves occupy the principle advantage. It's that simple. Among a group of investors, how can we take advantage of principles? Only by evolution, not by fantasy.