Trading the indices?

[new_trader]

He meant the mechanics of supply and demand - Not their application... Which ofcourse can give different results depending on your methods and depending on your markets.

The basic concept remains the same.

I strongly advise you to keep this line of thinking. Don't let jackolan's garbage corrupt you. One should understand the effects of supply and demand for the instrument they trade, whether it be a single companies stock, a commodity or a Futures contract. The key to success in this profession is accurately judging the supply and demand situation, everything else is nonsense.

 

[jackolan]

He meant the mechanics of supply and demand - Not their application... Which ofcourse can give different results depending on your methods and depending on your markets.

The basic concept remains the same.

OK, here's a different example then... do you think buying a bank share has the same market dynamincs in 2008 and 2009 as it did in 2006? Do you think your 2006 strategy will net you the same gains in 2009?

 

[dilesh23]

arent you the guy from the big bang theory ?

 

[squall321]

because human nature is the same across all instruments.

totally agree! even the 87 and 29 crashes had rallies and consolidations. if these events can't change how markets behave, then nothing can.

 

[squall321]

But if you are looking to trade S&R or perhaps in conjunction with candle patterns, how can an index be a true reflection of a resistance point, for example, if it's made up of many different companies?

The index chart is just looking at buying and selling like any other chart. The companies don't act that differently. A rising tide floats all boats (even turds like c and bac rally when the dow is rallying).

 

[Black Swan]

A scalper should be able to pull out a profit every day, so I think if he makes three calls on any single share of his choosing tomorrow, and pulls a profit then he will have proved that a single share can be easily scalped.

Quite frankly I'm stunned at this ignorant contention, any share (as any other instrument) is easier to scalp if the volatility is there. Consider the mining sector over the past year or so and the individual shares, or perhaps individual shares were 'Penny Farthing' dabbles, in between pilates classes and dropping the kids off at school after reading the Daily Hate's journos recommendations over the weekend...

Have a look at, for example, Xstrata last week, look at the weekly chart and tell me if its any more difficult to scalp from it than a currency pair? Given the news over the weekend it could be volatile tomorrow, may have already been priced in, but that sector has been explosive over the past year or more....

Plenty of folk have made a living, yes a living trading; Apple, Yahoo and Google and nothing else for years...

 

[new_trader]

Quite frankly I'm stunned at this ignorant contention, any share (as any other instrument) is easier to scalp if the volatility is there. Consider the mining sector over the past year or so and the individual shares, or perhaps individual shares were 'Penny Farthing' dabbles, in between pilates classes and dropping the kids off at school after reading the Daily Hate's journos recommendations over the weekend...

Have a look at, for example, Xstrata last week, look at the weekly chart and tell me if its any more difficult to scalp from it than a currency pair? Given the news over the weekend it could be volatile tomorrow, may have already been priced in, but that sector has been explosive over the past year or more....

Plenty of folk have made a living, yes a living trading; Apple, Yahoo and Google and nothing else for years...

I will also add that those who have made a living trading Apple or Yahoo or Google have studied those stocks thoroughly and have become familiar with their characteristics and 'footprint' so to speak. Anyone who has been exclusively trading Apple would not be able to immediately switch to Google and trade it profitably. This further highlights the ignorance at the suggestion that I should switch to a stock I've never studied and trade it profitably from the start...

 

[Calinor]

Grey1 would be turning in his grave....

Did he die?

Anyone who has been exclusively trading Apple would not be able to immediately switch to Google and trade it profitably.

I'm not sure I agree with that new_trader. Why do you say that? Are you saying that someone suitably skilled wouldn't find that his edge applies to a greater or lesser extent in another market/instrument? I'd imagine, that someone who can skillfully trade one instrument, may (depending on the edge that he has) find that he can trade another market profitably. In fact your contention almost contradicts what you said earlier. Because do you think the impact of supply and demand are any different on Google and Apple? And even if they were, are they so different that a profitable trader would become an unprofitable one?

 

[SanMiguel]

So, does S&R really count when trading an index?

 

[peto]

Grey1 would be turning in his grave....

Indeed, I'd be most sorry to hear that Iraj was no longer with us. Peeps still seem to be requesting to join his group. Or were you speaking metaphorically?

jackolan, however, is added to my growing ignore list.

 

[squall321]

So, does S&R really count when trading an index?

Look at 4510 on ftse, are you saying that is not R???

 

[jackolan]

Anyone who has been exclusively trading Apple would not be able to immediately switch to Google and trade it profitably.

Hmmm... so you are saying you AGREE with me that different markets are different and the same so called "laws" you have been not so convincingly talking about do NOT apply?

I'm sorry, I thought you said earlier that switching markets is something that COULD be done because those that "know what's what" (quote from NT) will obviously know this [I know, this statement doesn't make any sense to me either, but apparently, it's the only sentence that NT uses on a regular basis].

I'm confused by your apparent change of heart... perhaps you'd like to explain yourself?

Have a look at, for example, Xstrata last week, look at the weekly chart and tell me if its any more difficult to scalp from it than a currency pair? Given the news over the weekend it could be volatile tomorrow, may have already been priced in, but that sector has been explosive over the past year or more....

I look forward to seeing your live calls tomorrow.

So, does S&R really count when trading an index?

I hope so, because I've been working on a modification to my system on FTSE100 to incorporate S&R and it will hopefully move me up from my current average of 2% equity growth per day to more like 6%.

arent you the guy from the big bang theory ?

Yep, that's me... DOCTOR Sheldon Cooper... I'm a genius with no social skills. Straight talking, to the point, and ALWAYS right!

 

[jiggly]

OK, here's a different example then... do you think buying a bank share has the same market dynamincs in 2008 and 2009 as it did in 2006? Do you think your 2006 strategy will net you the same gains in 2009?

the same market dynamics, yes.

a 2006 strategy used in 2009, will not yield the same results, because the strategy is probabalistic not certain. but their is no reason why a 2006 strategy would fail if it is built around timely trading principles and concepts.

I think you guys should stop arguing about this, from what I can see it is a waste of energy.

 

[new_trader]

Hmmm... so you are saying you AGREE with me that different markets are different and the same so called "laws" you have been not so convincingly talking about do NOT apply?

I'm sorry, I thought you said earlier that switching markets is something that COULD be done because those that "know what's what" (quote from NT) will obviously know this [I know, this statement doesn't make any sense to me either, but apparently, it's the only sentence that NT uses on a regular basis].

I'm confused by your apparent change of heart... perhaps you'd like to explain yourself?

Explain myself? I don't think it will do any good because you are incapable of understanding. But I will try explaining using an analogy. You agree that the 'law' of gravity is consistent in the Universe? I'm sure you would. You also know that you would weigh more on Earth than you would on the moon, agree? I wouldn't have to send you to the moon to 'prove' this would I?

How about this, get a tennis ball and throw it up in the air. Now get a bowling ball and throw it up in the air. You needed to use more force to throw the bowling ball up to the same height didn't you? Does this mean gravity is inconsistent?

You are unbelievably hard work!

 

[demeanor]

hi there !!

Index is a basket of securities, and yes its the aggregate of the leading companies. Remember its always safe to invest in index, rather than individual stocks, b'coz if you are investing in individual stock, you dunno at what time the index might be loosing its value or raising and as such you may profit or you may loose the whole.

But when its whole index, there is every chance that your investment will be reaping benefits, coz if one company is not doing well, the other company will be doing excellently well, thus balancing the trades.

Yes thats why , I trade only "WHOLE Indices" at gnutrade...and I feel really rewarded

 

[jackolan]

You also know that you would weigh more on Earth than you would on the moon, agree?

So you ARE agreeing with me then?... that in different markets (and in different time periods, e.g. before 2008 and after 2008) the "effect of gravity" is different. Just as the "effect of gravity" is different on the Moon and the Earth.

What a shame you couldn't say that at the beginning, it would have saved a lot of time.

So there we have it... there are some markets that are easier to scalp than others, because the "effect of gravity" makes it more likely for a ball to bounce in certain ways in one circumstance rather than the other.

Applied back to the original post (at last)... it means that S&Rs do exist in an index, but they will be applied in a slightly different way to that of an individual share.

Phew.

 

[jackolan]

the same market dynamics, yes.

I'm beginning to see why 95% of traders lose money.

but their is no reason why a 2006 strategy would fail if it is built around timely trading principles and concepts.

This completely fails to take into account that the market is not "mechanical"... it's built out of human dreams and fears.

If you really think that someone buying bank shares in 2009 is no less fearful of losing their money than the same buyer on the same share in 2006 you are completely missing the point of "market dynamics." And if you can't see that such fear would radically change the way the stock behaves, well, then you will certainly lose your money - or at least, not make as much... this has nothing to do with "probabilities" at all... someone who realises that the price behaviour has changed will make more money in such a climate (shorts would be WAY more profitable in 2009 than 2006, as an obvious example).

EDIT: Anyway, I've made my 2% for the day so I'm out of here... see you guys tomorrow! Have fun...

EDIT: Couldn't stay away... tried the new S&R strategy and it seems OK, up to 6% now but it's a bit nail biting... just have to build some confidence in its workings I guess

 

[new_trader]

So you ARE agreeing with me then?... that in different markets (and in different time periods, e.g. before 2008 and after 2008) the "effect of gravity" is different. Just as the "effect of gravity" is different on the Moon and the Earth.

What a shame you couldn't say that at the beginning, it would have saved a lot of time.

So there we have it... there are some markets that are easier to scalp than others, because the "effect of gravity" makes it more likely for a ball to bounce in certain ways in one circumstance rather than the other.

Applied back to the original post (at last)... it means that S&Rs do exist in an index, but they will be applied in a slightly different way to that of an individual share.

Phew.

You keep changing your argument don't you? What a shame your logic and reasoning is so inconsistent, or more accurately, non-existent. I give up, and one thing I want to make perfectly clear is that I do not agree with you becuase you talk pure, utter, 1st grade garbage, and it's not that you do not understand, what makes it worse is that you do not understand that you do not understand!


S&R applied in a different way? Such rubbish!! Support is support or it is not!

Absolute rubbish that you confuse and misdirect newbies with, absolute and utter trash!

 

[jackolan]

S&R applied in a different way? Such rubbish!! Support is support or it is not!

You actually believe that a support level in Rio Tinto has a direct analogy to a support level in the FTSE100? Please, go ahead and lose your money... I'm happy enough to take it off you. I advocate that a newbie specialises in a single market, gets to know it's personality, it's quirks and uniqueness. THAT is the way to make money... YOUR attitude that "all markets are the same" is simply a minefield too dangerous for any trader with genuine experience to recommend.

 

[new_trader]

shorts would be WAY more profitable in 2009 than 2006, as an obvious example.

More utter garbage, you just make spurious statements as if they are fact. Utter garbage that you speak, worthless rubbish.