Scalping

[Cornix]

What is interesting is that CME stopped publishing statistics of algo activity on their site.

 

[Liquid validity]

What is interesting is that CME stopped publishing statistics of algo activity on their site.

Probably cause its increasing, and like NYSE, NASDAQ and so on, they have
a financial incentive to allow it to continue, along with other institutional bodies
who are quite happy to maintain the status quo.

 

[Cornix]

Probably cause its increasing, and like NYSE, NASDAQ and so on, they have
a financial incentive to allow it to continue, along with other institutional bodies
who are quite happy to maintain the status quo.

Yea, it's increasing a lot and guess that's one of the reasons so many polititians speak FTT lately.

 

[EulerFourier]

Well, I've read all the firms in Chicago have gone to trading spreads and hardly any of them trade outright directional positions. I've been trying to learn spreads but it's not a simple matter. Especially interest rate spreads. Perhaps that is the way of the future??

 

[Cornix]

Well, I've read all the firms in Chicago have gone to trading spreads and hardly any of them trade outright directional positions. I've been trying to learn spreads but it's not a simple matter. Especially interest rate spreads. Perhaps that is the way of the future??

Yea, one of my trading buddies is a bond quant, mostly does yield spreads and sometimes shows me his graphs, but my brain quickly overheats looking at those. :cheesy:

 

[Liquid validity]

Well, I've read all the firms in Chicago have gone to trading spreads and hardly any of them trade outright directional positions. I've been trying to learn spreads but it's not a simple matter. Especially interest rate spreads. Perhaps that is the way of the future??

For institutional trade I would completely agree.
Trouble is I think the trend for HFT taking over is unstoppable,
at best, legislation may be passed forcing them all to at least use the SIP quote.
That will depend purely on who shouts loudest and lobbies more effectively,
the pension funds and VWAP insti algo's on one side and the HFT NBBO front runners.
Not sure I'd want to bet on that one

Really though, that is an insti battle ground.
If your current method still works or you can identify a way to profit
from the above battle, thats all that matters.

 

[Shakone]

Haha yeah he said that, but only to throw off his competition! He most certainly does not use those things.

Yeah it's good risk reward among other common money management ideas that make TA stuff profitable in the long run, if an indicator system makes a large amount of money it is almost certainly a lucky draw and won't be repeated.

This doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but unless you are Paul Rotter, then you have no evidence of anything you've said. One could just as easily say that he said "watch the order book for a long time" to throw off his competition. We either take what he said at face value, or we don't. You can't sensibly pick and choose what you want from his comments to justify your own bias and then pass it off as fact. It makes perfect sense why he would use charts, trendlines and formations. Even for an order book trader, it still makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to be an over-looked fact that he only earned the nickname flipper and made all of the money he did once he'd already become a very large size trader. It wouldn't work otherwise. Nobody cares if he puts a 10 lot in and then switches the other direction. If he puts in a 6000 lot, which then attracts orders, then he can flip and he can gain advantage on the order book traders. He built up his account from low levels not from flipping, then used his flipping technique once he got to such a large size.

As for the second part about it being only money management, I disagree. Entering on those breakouts and just using a fixed risk:reward ratio isn't going to yield a great deal of profit in my experience. It's not really the money management, but the trade management once in.

 

[EulerFourier]

This doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but unless you are Paul Rotter, then you have no evidence of anything you've said. One could just as easily say that he said "watch the order book for a long time" to throw off his competition. We either take what he said at face value, or we don't. You can't sensibly pick and choose what you want from his comments to justify your own bias and then pass it off as fact. It makes perfect sense why he would use charts, trendlines and formations. Even for an order book trader, it still makes perfect sense to me.

You don't have even the slightest idea how the markets work, do you....

 

[EulerFourier]

I don't even know why I am "debating" this on a forum with a bunch of out to lunch "traders" who think their magical pictures reveal where the markets are going to go.

Why don't you go to the cme and pay up $650,000 for a seat and see how far you get using woodies cci....

 

[The Leopard]

I don't even know why I am "debating" this on a forum with a bunch of out to lunch "traders" who think their magical pictures reveal where the markets are going to go.

Why don't you go to the cme and pay up $650,000 for a seat and see how far you get using woodies cci....

Calm down dear! Someone just expressed an opinion, not an unreasonable one. The correct response would be to demonstrate how you know he is wrong (i.e. Rotter definitely lied about that part of his method, but not about other parts) or admit that you don't know you are right but nonetheless strongly suspect that you are.

 

[Shakone]

I don't even know why I am "debating" this on a forum with a bunch of out to lunch "traders" who think their magical pictures reveal where the markets are going to go.

Why don't you go to the cme and pay up $650,000 for a seat and see how far you get using woodies cci....

Bit defensive aren't you? I don't see any use in CCI, nor do I even use trendlines. That doesn't mean there isn't a use there for someone. I don't pretend to know everything that works or how other traders I've never met must be trading. I leave that to people like you.

Rotter can't stand in the way of a runaway market. There are things besides the order book that I believe he would need to know. News, context, trend, formations etc. Seems clear to me why he would still be interested in all of this. If that means I 'don't even have the slightest idea how the markets work' then so be it. I'll continue to trade my way, and you can continue to be dismissive of all ways other than your own.

 

[EulerFourier]

okay okay you're both right. I think I spend too much time staring at computer screens. Makes you a bit edgy after 100hrs/week. I should smoke a joint and go for a walk or something, hahaha

 

[Mike Kshemaraja]

This doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but unless you are Paul Rotter, then you have no evidence of anything you've said. One could just as easily say that he said "watch the order book for a long time" to throw off his competition. We either take what he said at face value, or we don't. You can't sensibly pick and choose what you want from his comments to justify your own bias and then pass it off as fact. It makes perfect sense why he would use charts, trendlines and formations. Even for an order book trader, it still makes perfect sense to me.

Seems to be an over-looked fact that he only earned the nickname flipper and made all of the money he did once he'd already become a very large size trader. It wouldn't work otherwise. Nobody cares if he puts a 10 lot in and then switches the other direction. If he puts in a 6000 lot, which then attracts orders, then he can flip and he can gain advantage on the order book traders. He built up his account from low levels not from flipping, then used his flipping technique once he got to such a large size.

As for the second part about it being only money management, I disagree. Entering on those breakouts and just using a fixed risk:reward ratio isn't going to yield a great deal of profit in my experience. It's not really the money management, but the trade management once in.

Wise post:smart:

 

[Mike Kshemaraja]

okay okay you're both right. I think I spend too much time staring at computer screens. Makes you a bit edgy after 100hrs/week. I should smoke a joint and go for a walk or something, hahaha

A joint? "Brown sugar" in your case is recommended.

 

[MoonRocket]

...... I think I spend too much time staring at computer screens. Makes you a bit edgy after 100hrs/week.

Paul Rotter spent 5 hrs a day and occasionally 11 hrs a day.
Don't you think you're doing something wrong?

 

[Mike Kshemaraja]

For some reason, traders want to show the all world that their "way" is the only one.

In my humble view that shows me that they have not grasp it yet, a classic attitude of a newbie. They want to convince others because they only want convince themselves.

Absolute truths do not exist but only in people's little head.

What works for me does not necessary works for others and vice versa. Trading as others facet of life is a matter of perception scattered by own experiences.

Best thing to do in my opinion is to show how we trade and share positive views.

Trading and specially scalping is not about disputing, but is pure pragmatic street smart action (Shut up n play yer guitar).

FRANK ZAPPA---SHUT UP N PLAY YER GUITAR SOME MORE - YouTube

 

[VielGeld]

^ I do think some basic, fundamental form of market understanding is necessary to make it, though.

All these patterns that we analyze, it's just buyers and sellers interacting with each other. This is what I think anyone should build their model on. The model itself can be anything, but I do think it requires a way of capitalizing on this understanding to be valid. If it bears no relationship to how the market behaves, then it's useless.

How this comes about is unique to the trader, but I do think you'll find plenty of similarities between the successful methods.

 

[Mike Kshemaraja]

^ I do think some basic, fundamental form of market understanding is necessary to make it, though.

All these patterns that we analyze, it's just buyers and sellers interacting with each other. This is what I think anyone should build their model on. The model itself can be anything, but I do think it requires a way of capitalizing on this understanding to be valid. If it bears no relationship to how the market behaves, then it's useless.

How this comes about is unique to the trader, but I do think you'll find plenty of similarities between the successful methods.

Wise post.

 

[Cornix]

^ I do think some basic, fundamental form of market understanding is necessary to make it, though.

All these patterns that we analyze, it's just buyers and sellers interacting with each other. This is what I think anyone should build their model on. The model itself can be anything, but I do think it requires a way of capitalizing on this understanding to be valid. If it bears no relationship to how the market behaves, then it's useless.

How this comes about is unique to the trader, but I do think you'll find plenty of similarities between the successful methods.

Exactly!

 

[Mike Kshemaraja]

(Also posted before or in another thread, not sure, but I think is relevant to the to latest posts)

Yes, I think there is a big misconception about trading and setups in general. Traders rely very much on set ups to initiate a position. But in my humble view, set ups will not give a true reality of the market condition but the overall chart will. The pressure is either up, down or neutral. If it is pushing prices more one way than the other, without much resistance in sight, a trader simply sit tight until he spots a tradable setup that offers him a good entry to participate. The actual shape of the set up is quite irrelevant.