MightyMouse

I would suggest that 1400 is a magnet this time instead of a resistance level. A change in perspective makes a world of difference. It appears to me that the market accurately perceived there to be a lot of supply in the high 1390's. Only a fool would try to buy when there is too much supply available. When there is too much supply, the market prefers to deal with the supply at lower levels. Supply can be weak longs or persons wanting to go short. Weak longs will panic and sell right away so it is easy to steal their lunch and best to do it at cheap prices. Shorts who wanted to short at the 1400 level and instead chased the market down, getting short because they do not want to miss out, now have stops somewhere above their short entry and likely at a logical level like 1400. The market now seems to have thinned out a lot of the supply and may have created demand above in the form of buy stops of those who are short or getting short trying to call a top. The market will press into areas that it perceives to have a lot of demand. If such is the case at 1400, then it will act as a magnet instead of an area of resistance this time. I am not trading ES at the moment and I do best when I am entrenched in the market so I might be off a bit since I am not closely tracking the data. But, I do suspect that US Econ data today or tomorrow will likely provide the impetus to press this thing through the 1400 level.

1.30 is a strong psychological level. I will act when it fails to go back above 1.3 from below. Until then I am treating all this as noise.

A break down in the Euro would pep me up a bit.

Does it get unenjoyable?

That is Lucky's last photo.

How exactly is 1.3090 "holding" the euro from falling further? I would guess that same area is pulling it down and not holding it from falling further. If you expect more buying to occur at 1.3090, then why? and by whom?

If you can identify the human behavior that the system is capturing, then you have something. If you can't, then you just happened upon a really nice string of data that you have to hope appears again.

Sure. Your indicators, whatever they are, should give you information about what is going on in the market you are trading. Your indicator can be a simple as a a candle or price bar, or volume, price range, etc, etc. So, say, you narrow your indicators down to 4 indicators and you can choose from bullish bearish or neutral. With 4 indicators and 3 choices there are 81 distinct combinations of your indicators. Its a simple permutation formula: n^r N is the choices, R is the number of indicators. I suggest that you use indicators that give you very different information from each other about the market you are trading so that your indicators are not measuring the same thing. Do do not use a moving average and an rsi or a Stochastic as separate indicators because they are virtually the same. So, to use the above, you need to learn what each of the combinations of your indicators means for your market. So, do you only stay in when they are all bullish? do you wait until they are all bearish to exit? I do not know what you use and, therefore, do not know the answers you need. This takes some work, but eventually you learn the combinations like the back of your hand. I am not going to show you exactly what I use. But, this is the process I use.

You are asking a question that has no right answer to it. First off, you should only be taking opportunities that have a great potential to make more than you are risking. Secondly, you have to learn how to "draw lines in the sand", where you get out if it not longer does A or if it begins to do B and once the line in the sand is crossed you bail and be happy with what you took or what you lost. Doing the above requires a great understanding of the components of your system. When you understand how the parts of your system move together, you can confidently draw lines in the sand.

I do agree with you based on the way the rule is phrased. Personally, I hate losses. So, can you trade if you hate losses? I think you can since I know I hate losses and do trade and I take plenty losing trades. Maybe the rule should be: figure out how to not let losses impact your trading. Or: keep your losses so small that they do not bother you mentally. If small losses bother someone then losing might be the issue and that is a completely different animal to tame.

That seems like a great deal of luck to me for the next guy in line.

I am taking a third stab at shorting the euro. The first two resulted in small losses.

Winning streaks can continue for a long time and then come to a grinding halt. During the euphoric period, a trader can develop a very warped sense of ego. It happens to a lot of traders who have sustained winning streaks. Richard Dennis comes to mind. Understanding how much luck plays a role in your results is a good way to stay grounded in the here and now.

Euphoria is only bad if you start losing. You can them blame it on "something". If it doesn't lead to losses, then it is performance due to keen intuition developed over years of hard work.

There should be a law against defacing art like that.

Scalpers were pit traders and had the advantage of being able to buy at the bid and sell at the ask. They weren't able to do so all the time, but a keen trader could take advantage of pit chaos and enjoy the theoretical advantage. These days, electronically, your trade is placed in a queue. Trades are executed on a FIFO basis and the only way to guarantee that you get execution is for the market to trade through your entry price and your exit price which generally means you would have been better off staying out of the trade when you got in and better off staying in the trade when you got out.

I agree with you. All you have to do is say you bought at the about low tick and say you sold at almost at the high tick. Don't say you got the exact low and high. People might think you are bullshitting.

The fear of missing out is usually a problem that traders assign to over trading and getting caught the wrong way too many times, resulting in unwanted losses. The day ends and they feel remorseful for their poor behavior. However, if the net of their activities result in getting caught the right way more times than not, then there is a fist pump in exaltation of their trading brilliance.

Each of the instruments you have mentioned generally or largely follows or leads the other and generally end up in the same direction for the day which means that you can trade ym by watching es. YM and ES move in the same direction about 98% of the time. If the question asked by the OP is really: which emini is easier to make money with? Then, the answer is none is easier than the other. There are traders trading each that are ready to steal lunch money from new, naive entrants.

How do you know when you are back in the grove? it could be that your system works when you stop trading and then stops working when you start again. Perhaps you would have been even or ahead, but your next set of trades sets you back even further. Does it make sense to just suck it up and trade through it?

There are BS answers and then there are quality BS answers based on content. When you have a drawdown, you begin to panic and second guess yourself even though you are not supposed to do it. You can tell yourself not to do it. You can pay someone else to tell you not to do it, but either way you either learn to fight your way through it or you succumb to mediocrity.

I recommend that you let your losses impact your psyche so that you begin to panic and second guess yourself so that we can continue to get some of our money back.

The market will go down as long as sellers are able to overwhelm weak buyers and will go up as long as buyers can overwhelm weak sellers. If the market is declining, there are likely lots of short sellers who need liquidity at lower prices. Which means they need to buy from sellers. So, if demand is perceived to be real and large at the tick below the low, the shorts are in a difficult position if they have large needs for liquidity at low prices. A typical scenario that occurs is that price will rise from the level of perceived demand because of both weak buyers, defined as impatient and noncommittal (small stop), jumping in not to miss the move, and panicked sellers covering. The freshly created liquidity, in the form of weak buyer sell stops, then, is usually enough to provide the short sellers the liquidity to exit safely or perhaps even push through the level of previously perceived demand.

If you didn't make money, can I guess that you lost money? I simply learned to stay out of the market on days like you described. They are pretty easy to identify beforehand. You can always wait in the shadows prepared to trade if the typical way out of those days comes about.

I am "old fashioned" maybe. I believe I should get out as soon as reasonably possible when a trade isn't working. Trading 1 es contract limits one's ability to leverage and manage a trade. I es contract also has the value of about $67k. That would hurt me if I lost that. I am not going to lie about that. When I am positive and I add leverage to the trade, I can have a position of over 10 contracts or more. Trading without a stop at that point becomes insane with for an individual with my net worth. If 67k is no big deal to you, I salute you. As far as curve A or B, I would trade the strategy behind the curve that made the most sense to me, regardless of the equity curve and even if it tested negative for the same period. The reason for this potentially limiting thinking is that I need to be able to understand why there is going to be money in the market for me to take. If I do not understand, then I will begin to hesitate, second guess my trade, get out too early, get in to late, etc. My understanding leads me to taking 1000 out of 1000 trades that occur that fit the particular criteria that I am looking for. I really care less if I lose for a day, week or month, etc. because I know that what I am doing is sound. In my opinion, "counting to 3" and dropping a trade in the market is nuts. But, if someone would have done just that over the test period, they would have made a hell of a lot more money per contract than I did over the same period, so they would have laughed all the way to the bank. In fact, the guy who would have traded the strategy that bought the high over the same period would have kicked my ass too if that data is per contract results. I am pretty sure too that both curves would have outperformed most professionally managed accounts. As far as the topic of the thread is concerned, there are times when I will only buy the high, but it has nothing to do with clock or calender time.