zdo

Have you really backtested moment to moment reliability of ask/bid ratio to price movement? Bluntly - applied generally across a very large sample of ES tick data, it has a near random ( ie near meaningless) relationship … recently ran basically same tests against some 2012 data to see if anything had changed since a few months after that data stream first became widely available realtime – essentially same results... ..also, testing results don’t change very much at all when restricted to when price is at important SR’s either... … not to say there aren’t any setups…there are isolated, very condition specific, situations where BA ratio imbalances are good … for a few ticks …ie (in my experience) none of these setups are worth watching and waiting for ‘with the eyes’. ... this space was 'filled' with bots a while back... they've moved on now... so, imo, it may have recaptured some niche automation potential ...

not if ‘thriving’ is actually being created… Price and volume can be enough, but price and volume can not be enough for everyone. He must find that out for himself … the point I’ve been making herein is that “end[ing] up in the same soup” (simple or not) PLUS “going on through the soup” is ultimately the best way to go… get in the soup but predetermine not to end in the soup... … that not following the beginner’s exploration impulses and embracing the ‘mistaking as fast as possible’ stage to completion, one has far fewer chances of finding one’s own best ways to approach trading…which in trading is the equivalent of living life in a ‘dead end’ job … The foregoing is NOT advice!

Hopefully, I’m not beating a dead horse here… (sincerely, I do hope Steve46 is a ‘forgiving horse’ … not a ‘dead horse’) but when I read “have to make some decisions as to what to put into the public domain” I understood. I thought, if I were in his shoes, putting 'setups', etc into the public domain would be easy. What would not be easy to put into the public domain is when to trust / use it and when not to trust /use it. Having put a lot of time and energy studying, researching, and testing ‘institutional’ and block based trading, I can tell you categorically every setup doesn’t mean you ‘got them’ … in some of the exact same setups, by numbers and by the ‘shapes’ / forms, instead of you ‘got them’ - they ‘got you’ … and I've also 'lived' it in the last week or so - one setup worked the first time and then didn’t when a very very similar / almost identical setup showed up again. Then a pattern with a different ‘form' didn’t work the first time and did the second time. etc etc… tangentially related… :sardonicgrin: charles hugh smith-We Are All Muppets Now

200 MA of price or using 200MA as the slow average? “leading” ??? Is convergence or divergence of two xAverages – relative to most recent extreme (hook) or contacts - really “leading” ? How many different timeframe combinations have you explored? Tried ~3 min, ~15 min, ~60 min ? Have you considered that a ~7 minute chart might replace all three? (:haha:polarity– simultaneously joshing you and being serious here :missy:) Some big picture comments - Just by following the links and hints others are providing you herein, you are moving away from the 'simple'. In line with some others' recent posts (vpoc, etc), traders must learn to percieve, think, act/react differently at price (and value, etc) extremes than they do when price is 'in the middle'. Each individual will have more strengths in trading one than the other. I'm bringing this up largely because "when it dips below the 200" is oriented towards the 'middle' type trades and as you naturally explore and experiment it is important to start building awareness of the distinct approaches required and ... awareness of how you personally percieve, think, act/react differently at price (and value, etc) extremes than you do when price is 'in the middle' - so that you can be clearer and more open to what your options and alternatives are. By far the most common coping mech. is to specialize in one of them and 'sit out' the other. .. and I'm sticking with the term "coping mechanism" - as in "settling" - because in my own case and in every case in working with others where we've gotten to sufficient depth with it, it is suboptimal adaptations post - trauma (not nec extreme trauma) ie subsequent 'decisions of defeat', and not frustrations or lack of aptitudes, that ultimately precludes one from developing the right 'mindsets' (for sake of brevity) and 'strategies' for both the extremes and the middles (and other 'types' too)

That is a perfect description of a poster over on TradersLaboratory... I think his user name is zdo :rofl: My methodology is centered in MarketTyping the auctions first then, off that typing, dynamically applying a weighted array of 12 ( dumb, but not necessarily simple) systems… opposite of developing a system then discovering ‘filters’ to improve its performance … and another single word would require a book … If we aren't in the same book, there isn't much sense in trying to get on the same page as someone ie I rarely discuss ‘edges’ with other traders – even face to face. If I ask someone a question about a method, most of the time they don’t have an answer that really goes to what I was asking… and typically when I am asked a question, any insights I do have seem to go whizzing off into space… There are many other ways to connect with someone else besides trying to pump them with my system… I’ll just stick with “ find your own way” Specific to “price to volume and what people use” – I only use volume in certain specific market conditions and it turns out mostly for exits in ‘OB’ or ‘OS’ situations. Except for certain block trade setups (seeUrmaBlume, etc) and also in a couple of isolated parabolic type exceptions , (and ironically, in relation to all the volume content in the trading community) I get more traction out of an ’indicator’ utilizing volume / flow of market orders than I do straight up volume, delta’s, book, or tape. …and fwiw, I find nothing ‘wrong’ with classic volume work or volume oriented methods like VSA or even Hershey… but just am not personally inclined to use them day in and day out… Maybe DBP can provide you some links to his OLDER material about using volume for entry at his S’s and R’s. it’s different from the methods that use Vol. all the time… ( btw, if I remember correctly he seemed to be trying to ‘stay in’ until next signif S or R was reached … if I were using that I would be less ‘ambitious’ with my targets… will leave it to him to add, correct, or transform as needed…) What info do (or did) you derive from MACD? Context? Content? All the best, zdo

mohsinqureshii, With Silver, as I mentioned in your recent Silver thread, until certain ‘crowds’ have been activated silver will still just sit there… more than many other markets, certain of the crowds in Silver live more ‘in’ cyclical time than they do ‘in’ linear time. This is an ‘out there’ hypothesis but when you have experiences like “I become emotional in these situations” “I don't know but Silver is the only product which always nervous me although I lose into but still can't stop myself trading into it” it may mean you are tangentially in touch with the morphic field of one of those ‘crowds’ … and some part of you doesn’t want to “miss out” on what might be building within that ‘crowd’ So, Silver is a “bullet” but sometimes it’s an unfired bullet just sitting there. … if you look at say an 8 hour chart you can see it has been basically just sitting there in the same range since mid May … ie it’s not currently a very appropriate for short time frame ‘impulse wave’ trading … It WILL be a speeding bullet again… maybe tomorrow :spam: and :helloooo:… but for now it sits in gata land ... patiently prepare. … having been in congestion this long a strategy of entry stops above and below has progressively increasing probabilities … and upon a breakout, if and when it retraces back in to the congestion area, ‘limit’ entries or second breakout stop ins would also be suitable in a plan.... whatever it takes to be on the silver bullet when it does go ... because each time it does go 'speeding bullet', it has the potential of going very very far … Often with trading, the less you 'expect' the more it 'gives' – from another angle, it is finding and feeding those aspects and archetypes ‘in there’ that can and do operate in the absence of expectation, attachment, and unnecessary limbic system activations.

Ditto that (and not necessarily to your specific situation, mo) - Those activities, things (and relationships) in life that we are attracted to, but really should learn to avoid are opportunities to shave off some of our personal delusions and illusions, etc. … and then later take on the challenges of clearing projections and attributions we have made on the object… I had to work through the same thing as obsidian with the Yen… long ago felt snakebit with it, decided not to trade it anymore, then later realized I needed to find ways to work through these kinds of limits.

Most who are working the simple <-> complex axis are really attempting to move towards more certainty on the certainty <-> uncertainty axis But - any certainty in trading is going to be low–grade (and also short lived) certainty so … :"Simple" ? Forget about it! …unless you don’t seek ANY adaptivity in your trading To be adaptive, consider that you may have to turn towards making your trading as complex as it needs to be instead of orienting to and pushing towards more ‘simplicity’

I nominate Tams post for Post of the Month... and it's in the running for Post of the Year! ... will quote you when someone asks me what I mean by "Find your own way!"

goes to PM's ie not specific to silver so almost off topic Cash Out Of Gold And Send Kids To College? | ZeroHedge

Just some thoughts… The “mean” is not really a very good ‘central tendency’ to look for reversions to. The most safe mean reversion systems go very light load on normal excursions. They only load up size on exhaustions of extreme outliers… Instead of saying they “ran out of money”, I think it’s more accurate and instructive to say that LTCM 1) refused to stop out and 2) decided to ‘double down’ … ultimately the description “ran out of money” has same result, but this way points more to the avoidable ‘mistakes’ involved

…missed seeing your question earlier… thought this thread had gone inert… will make an attempt … wish you had asked everyone so that someone who ‘knows’ could really explain it … I think we’re bumping up against the limits of language – even busting out in poem wouldn’t really help… “answers” to such questions are best found ‘inside’ your own life…etc etc… here goes nothing… “Two distinctly different brains coexist inside our head. Each processes information quite independently from the other, and each uses a distinctly separate processing language. Each looks at the world from a different point of view. Each brain accumulates and stores a different memory of the same experience.” sequential-----------------------------------------synthesizing deductive------------------------------------------inductive ‘disassembles’ wholes into parts--------assembles parts into wholes exhibits a separating influence-----------exhibits an integrating influence guided largely by ’tangible goals’--------guided by ‘intangible purposes’ categorizes objectively----------------------discrerns subjectively gathers and stores data--------------------transforms data into ‘wisdom’ can be programmed-------------------------can be trained activated by “flaw-finding”------------------activated by “value-finding or “What’s wrong?” questions------------or “What’s right?” questions more re limits of language, etc. Like yur orkid just said - “I think you guys are over analysing this”. It’s really not productive, but our tendency when seeing side by side stacks like this is to go further into separate, compare, and contrast mode… so “what does what?” is far less of an important question than “how do they complement each other and work together even better ?” As a friend, I will just bluntly tell you – reading all this and the fkn accompanying incomplete list, etc will not get you much closer to ‘understanding’ these brains or making them more ‘accessible’ to you !! … “… the two functions must work together as a team …what clues do you get from the table’s comparisons about how this partnership can best occur? For me, the most telling comparison looks at programmable versus trainable. A computer chip is programmable.” Horses, which have almost pure synthesizing functions in both hemispheres of its brains, are only trainable. If horses had significantly more developed sequential ‘brain’ networks, we would attempt to program them to win races while they were “standing in the paddock., much like we attempt to program our children in school …” ...not further going into it here, but it should be noted that those “two distinctly different brains” are not the only essential ‘brains’ in the first body... and just for snicks ... let’s note some of the words that I didn’t utilize. I have COMPLETELY recused from service two of our main and typical ‘collective paradigm’ words connected to this subject – analytical and intuitive…. took them out because they are now, in a word, misleading… Also, note the absence of relying very much on brain hemispheric references … historically emblematic but now also misleading. However - one notable point around the left / right brain business is that brain development leaning ‘feminine’ tends to produce cooperative cohesiveness between these ‘brains’ and less specialization… while ‘masculine’ brain development tends to produce expertise / specializations and lower communication / cooperation / access bandwidth between the two ‘brains’. …One other word, a big ape in the room that really needs to be mentioned / included, but isn’t = ego. :rofl: Acknowledgements and references: All quotes herein and the stacks (which I abbreviated) are from Kurt Wright, my 'thinking' coach in another lifetime… hth and have a great weekend all zdo

...while reporting that in my own experiences I've been apparently uneffected, I should have also taken the time to acknowledge more of the host of obstacles, costs, and (systemic,etc) risks we, the individual traders, must literally overcome or at least brush off ... the corruptions accompanying fiat, in my thinking, is more of a threat than the houses gaming the system with HFT, etc... see charles hugh smith-A Common-Sense View of the Stock Market , etc From recent incidents, it appears that most often the damaging effects of HFT would fall on the HFTer's themselves... In any event, while the media fearmongers wring word hands ad nauseum over HFT'S threats to the whole 'system' (...what they're really worry about is price levels of course...) - individual traders need to be remain prepared to utilitize any HFT generated "flash crashes", etc. as opportunities... For example, resting orders placed a while ago that were set to expire early next week made me a few bucks off the recent "HFT" flame up in EURCHF see "RBS Algo Went Berserk" | ZeroHedge... this is not a very 'active' / 'instrumental' example ... but still is in keeping with the clustering an opportunity orientation with "anything can happen" / occasionally things are really going to illustrate/manifest the underlying 'non parametrics'...

related ? Chart of the day, HFT edition | Felix Salmon In index futures over the past 7 or 8 years, I have only experienced a couple of moments where my suspicion ‘hairs on the back of my head’ got bristled up that maybe HFT just somehow got me… ie in my own life it has had no measurable (or at least, identified ) effects … the ppl and bots are all really in the same boat – for all, the only successful line of attack is long when price is moving up and short when price is moving down … ie 'they' can jitter around with bid and ask till they run out of bandwidth but ultimately price must move up or down for ‘anyone’ to make any money - excepting superior premium writers of course … ... ie their timeframes have no impact on my time frames... btw, this final statement has grounding in my studies of 'cycles' and is pervasive across all timeframes.. non continuous 'times' do not interact, etc etc

.I seriously do not believe there is TRULY non - biased 'research' about metals available and I seriously do not believe classical supply and demand fundamentals is reliable 'data' for making trading decisions in PM's ... if you can accept those two beliefs, then SafeHaven.com has a huge stack of (mostly after the fact / impulse move) 'research' fwiw, I personally am still waiting for near 24 - but acknowledge I may have to settle for buying into strength and breakouts … which basically reiterates my long term bullish bias for PM’s ( vs the fiats ) … and really, unless one is long term bearish on fiats, ie one is a perma bear re systemic issues (not nec. the same as nominal pricing bearishness, btw) there’s not much sense in being bullish silver (and PM’s in general). … and yada yada on the various collectivist plans, actions, results / unintended consequences … which are moving either at the speed of night or the speed of light... … ie now, soon, later, never… for snicks, like Has The Perfect Moment To Kill The Dollar Arrived? to sum up… “Anytime is a good time to take a long term position in silver. Only certain times are good times to trade silver shorter term” zdo ... and those “certain times” are when the medium holding period crowds are unconsciously ‘activated’ “… millionaires don’t use astrology… but billionaires do…” Now that I’ve splattered piles of yada yada on the thread … finally I get around to asking – mohsinqureshii, what holding time frame do you operate from ??? :doh: This post has been screened by the NSA and several other federal and international agencies. If you hear from me again, then you can assume this one was deemed to be within tolerable limits.

Thanks to some of the new guys for pulling this back on topic from Post #27 forward. I’m thinking the distinction we’re working with in this thread is that 'parts' of our brains can be trained but not programmed and some of it can be programmed but not trained. The fight broke out when the OP wanted to discuss the first and so he ‘neglected’ the other side which is obviously precious to those who are more dominant in or emphasize the second. The link below contains a potential exercise for each of us in exploring what is possible for us to “learn” and what is possible for us to “train”. On the surface it most fits into what Steve46 has been talking about lately, but a little bit of neutral curiosity can provide some explosive insights into what Predictor is talking about too. A Primer To Intraday Market Moves | ZeroHedge Having been in this business a long time it reminded me how traders used to get a contact high off Larry William’s trainings, but very few really listened to what he was saying …and the key element his students most neglected were the almost EXACTLY same statistical studies which drew out the prevailing daily tendencies of those days! ...(chapters and chapters... then...) Necessarily short and oversimplified but - The threshold from surviving ( as in to learn and “practice one or two basic setups hundreds of times” KOMODO) to thriving is in training to know, in the moment, if and how those statistical tendencies are working (or not) that particular day. (or even more dastardly, that part of a particular day ).. ie (and OP can correct me if I'm off here, but) - ---"learning" not enough. ... (chapters and chapters... then...) ...a related way of getting at this is practical understanding of the differences between "judging" and "judgement". The first is learned. The second has no need at all to be 'learned' - the only 'learning' needed is for the first to 'learn' how to get out of the way of the second.

A large number of views or thanks or likes on one of my posts always tells me I’ve gotten away from my intention on TL. My posts are not targeted to the large, general audience – but to the one particular trader out there who might need it in the moment. Most days I only find a few minutes to skim a few posts and maybe compose something that questions the paradigms of the “profession” (your term) from way out on the tails where seeking ‘credibility’ would be ludicrous.. That’s just it Steve46, the content about trading you have authored IS high quality and credible. I’m only finding “wrong” with your content about your peers and the way you are treating other people… It’s basically just a matter of at least trying when it comes to being able to disagree (or even warn or rescue them from some stoopid vendor like Predictor, etc) without being disagreeable. I’m taking the time and energy to respond because I’m still trusting you are not really as small, angry, and mean as you’re appearing to be recently… and re: I can’t speak for all traders, but the traders I admire ( myself included ) do not want to be in the "profession". 'Professional' has at its roots jumping through a bunch of governmental and cultural hoops so that one can have an exclusive specialized license (to exploit)… personally if I were to go professional, it would not be as a professional trader … been there, done that - IB, CTA, CPO, managing private funds (... and even did a short stint interspersed in there as a training “vendor” (as we call them in here ). Much like the complications that arise when lead substitutes in cellular receptor sites for zinc, etc, I find that ‘professionalism’ naturally needs to be flushed and chelated out - so that plain old fashioned Perseverance, etc. can do its job … and that’s some Learn How To Trade from yet another perspective from the one Predictor is talking about.

hm, Your students are sent to you? …they’re not directly paying the bill ?… so you have to treat them with a certain level of courtesy and respect or those footing the bill won’t send or refer anyone else ever ? … The way you’re posting on TL lately smells of progressively intensified frustration ‘displacement’ to me … Seems you’re left with a choice here – treat your vendor peers and members who voluntarily interact with you up here with a modicum of the same respect or continue to lose more and more of the credibility you previously established. Put another way … Vendor Vs Vendor is as inane as was Spy Vs Spy – but has none of the entertainment value of even Spy Vs Spy Having no entertainment value, what do the attacks on fellow vendors provide? …Maybe some educational value? Nope. On balance, this torrent of sabotage, attacks, and put downs interferes with “learning how to trade” far more than it helps with “learning how to trade”... ... also, and briefly, from your posted reactions to Predictor's content in particular, I doubt you really get the perspectives from which he's coming at the challenges of trading... …still trusting you are not really as small, angry, and mean as you’re appearing to be recently… Yours - shrinking together and making TL and all who participate smaller too, :missy: zdo

Anyone in here studied up on that more? ... from the perspective of other disciplines, etc. ? References? Links? Thx.

PQL111, If you have time, can you expound on “angle of 109” in terms of Gann’s framework? Thanks. zdo

re “As I create this goal of switching to / adding futures trading, what other (life) goals do I need to dis-create?” A word cloud from that final question would look very much like a word cloud straight out some law of attraction bulsht… but this is really not the case at all and more indicates the limitations of words period. But this is TL so … Oh lord … what have I done ??? … speaking of ‘indicates’, in a recent post, someone just joked that TL is not a place where you can freely discuss indicators (:haha:without certain lab monkeys throwing sht at you, etc…) … and sad to say but using both obfuscated and blatant attacks, by name calling them snake oil “vendors”, etc etc… we also run off well intentioned coaches and ‘trading psychologists’ who are actually trying to learn about people and traders, improve, and contribute …well TL is not a place where we can freely discuss this kind of content either… mostly because it’s not taught in any schools, universities or trading courses or books … this business of ‘dangling’ goals is not even in the edges of our prevailing paradigms - so I best shutup… Check for a PM – coming to an inbox near you soon

Do you remember when… the way we were ? The spikey action and range this morning in the currencies struck me as being very similar to the way it used to be 3 or 4 days a week in ‘85 – ’88 Those were “fun” / stressful / exciting times to be alive and trading! …placing stops really was stupid ...and a whole bunch of other cowboy guidelines smoothed the ‘thinking’ (or lack of it ) … if only I was as good at it then as I am now :wrygrin: ... honestly - I was a fkn mess back then :rofl:

Thanks for clarifying your intentions. TRO's selling is like holding a garage sale out in the middle of the desert. This does not call for marketing studies, producing commercials or other promotions, providing a track record, nurturing a reputation (even though… )… He simply throws the stuff out in the front yard and if you want something you give him a little bit of money and take it. ... and this particular thread is like getting stuff out of the free box instead of paying for it. Publishing signals requires that EVERY signal be assiduously published. That is work! Understandably not worth it to TRO or most small vendors. GBPUSD is within 15 tick of it's low right now... you're asking him to post every time such a condition is true. Requesting such is sort of the equivalent of asking every real yard sale on the planet to meet some petty ass code requirements Plus, Noob derives far more by taking, ‘posting’, and auditing his own experience of the signals… It’s not the system! It’s the trader’s fit with a system that matters. TRO posting “live” has no benefit to noobs’ finding out if they are a fit to the system.

Future markets have ‘multiple crowds’ and fortunately they are more obvious. I experience it as an array of crowds … and at any given time, one set of crowds has more ascendancy and is influencing the auction flow more than others. Then! the auction ‘rulers’ change! Instantly or gradually! Approaches: >Many systemic traders tend to plod on through all the different market types with just the one or two edges … this works, but takes a certain type of ‘tolerance’ >More discretionary type traders who survive typically learn (not nec. consciously) which types of markets it’s best for them to avoid… otherwise the face can get very bloodied, not to mention the bruised and broken ribs and internal organs and various other injuries that don’t show. Coming up, I watched many of my models implement various flavors of this avoidance’ and it just didn’t sit with me so I decided to stick with making typing the auction more central than developing edges,etc. until I could >Learn to quickly adapt to changes in “prevailing market conditions” / auction type / whatever you want to call it. This is statistically best accomplished by sizing up some edges and simultaneously sizing down other edges, but in the beginning it’s probably best to just simply switch between systems /edges while you’re developing a feel for these ‘crowds’ and you get used to trading methods that are not in your wheel house.. Then as you develop you can shift to up sizing on into your strengths / times you’re in alignment and size back when those times comes where you’re not in alignment… until you learn how to align other methods to other market types too…till ultimately you let the ‘numbers’ decide the methods and sizing instead of your ‘comfort levels’, etc. This final way is the only way I’ve found to thrive at futures trading. It’s much harder development on the front end, but pays off and produces more ‘ease’ (at least for me) in the long run…You’ll quickly see how this way is one of those ‘roads less traveled’ – especially if the MarketTyping is really given primacy. For example (and I’m not really disagreeing with him, just using it as an example btw), closely compare Negotiator’s reply to number two with this reply. Generally, he’s talking correlates, dominant concerns, yada yada and then concludes it’s “difficult to say whether there might be systematic issues at work” for 2). Nothing ‘wrong’ with that. But by contrast - without needing any yada yada’s and without needing to know the particulars of your method at all, by really giving MarketTyping primacy I say categorically that “systematic issues” are NOT at work! Rather than putting energy into finding out what is wrong with the method and what to change / how to improve it, I’m saying start identifying other methods to ‘turn on’ as soon as conditions change On certain levels for me “that’s futures trading” distills down to simply and nonjudgementally acknowledging that certain conditions will drive your perfectly fine ‘go to’ method(s) out of phase. How you deal with that ultimately determines the degree to which you thrive! That’s futures trading! Replying to your full post generally – It feels like you’re ready. I’d say jump on in with both feet!… Trade real and live. Make mistakes, adjust, go back to sim to confirm corrections, then go real again… get dirty, wash, rinse … repeat… as fast as possible. One barely related question I would recommend you ask yourself – As I create this goal of switching to / adding futures trading, what other (life) goals do I need to dis-create? HTH…All the best, zdo

Preface: I rarely trade individual stocks and have very low prob of ever trading this one …I may be popping in out of context, even off topic... so jmo fwiw I may have posted a similar link about this earlier in thread … basically FakeBook is an identity service… Plus - the appeal of its format and look’n’feel, etc. is far from universal… it only ‘serves’ the style needs of a percentage of users … already approaching apex? … related / of interest to this topic… http://cryptogon.com/?p=30595