There is always a trade off when you hold back money for buying the dip. I am not necessarily opposed to it as long it is not a central strategy for newbies to be buying the dip and also for the newbies to be recognizing that there are trade offs when they are purposefully holding back money with the idea of potentially buying the dip.. rather than mostly focusing on buying regularly with whatever budget they might have.
If newbies do their research well, understand the market history well, and prepare their capital as well as psychology well enough, I think waiting for dips to buy is good strategy. It's good strategy but not best one, because of a missing point in their mind.
If newbies know a fact that dips can occur anytime, and it means it might occur after a mini bull run, or a long bull run. So if a 20% dip occurs after price already soared 50%, buying in that dip is not better than if you simply do DCA like 2 or 3 months previously with a same price. Sometimes, waiting for dips will lift your entry price, not average it down like how DCA strategy is supposed to be practically.
So, which one are you standing with: holding back money to buy dips, or DCAing?
Your statement:
"
If newbies do their research well, understand the market history well, and prepare their capital as well as psychology well enough, I think waiting for dips to buy is a good strategy"
supports holding back money to buy dips, and the fact that you're suggesting it for newbies isn't proper in my opinion.
Newbies should learn to DCA instead, not even focusing on any dips until they have better understand how the whole market works. DCA is literally all they need, as it covers buying dips as well. Yet, if they need to buy more than usual to cover up a dip, then they can if they have the funds for it(provided there'sa proper plan behind it).BTW it works for everyone as well newbie or not.