atto

They're confusing supply and demand of the actual commodity with supply and demand of the futures. There's a difference, and they don't make a clear distinction (as it sounds better without). ...theoretically priced according to supply and demand doubled from $69 a barrel to nearly $150 Theoretically? Huh? No, it was actually that much. Sorry if your models didn't work. [They] were the first to notice the effects a few years ago when prices seemed to disconnect from the basic fundamentals of supply and demand Prices can't move without supply and demand, so here's the confusion. They see "less oil selling in the marketplace" (lower demand) and "refineries producing more" (more supply), but see rising prices, so "price has disconnected with supply and demand". Let's examine the flip side. Without futures, companies can't hedge their risk, so have to sell at market for whatever the price is. There's debate as to what causes more volatility, so here's an article from another view, questioning if institutional, investment, and speculative funds have increased prices and volatility: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70026d22-4c50-11dd-96bb-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1 . If you're into this, look into what happened to the Onion when futures trading on it was banned.

It's just the Traders Laboratory chat (link above on the navigation bar on every page, or click here)

Unfilled orders don't show up on the tape at all, so these huge orders that are pulled wouldn't affect tape reading. Since it's so easy to do this, I personally only pay attention to the tape. A huge bid/ask is yanked just as often as it's not, so you'd probably have difficulty using those.

This hinge ended up going for a few points, pulling back to the midpoint (to the tick), and then going another 10. If I took it (I didn't, so know it's hindsight), it went far enough that I'd be out on the break back past the hinge's high (somewhere in 47 NQ). To take the midpoint long again, I'd need some sort of confirmation that the area would be viable to attract bulls again. This came right before the open, when price bounced hard off... you guess it, 45 NQ. 45 also gave a little resistance at 10:30 est. Fwiw, later, price bounced again off 45.

That would be incorrect. Elliott Wave doesn't consist of just the classic 5 wave pattern, but a myriad of other patterns to accommodate for the fact that markets do not move in 3 wave impulses (with pullbacks in between). In fact, "good" EW charts are usually extremely complex. The 5 wave pattern does happen, but it's not the norm at all (not enough to use it as the basis of a fractal argument).

I found this post on "Re: All You Need... is a Chart" interesting and have nominated it accordingly for "Topic Of The Month January, 2009"

Nope, and you don't need the $25k needed to daytrade stock due to the Pattern Day Trader rule.

Hm, I see it, but only on my most recent post (which should be editable anyways right now because it's new). Is it not retroactive?

Sweet. Could I get it in Chat Junkies? For timeframe, can you do "forever"?

We can only that the bulls can do it ( don't kill me) (On a related note, the Tecumseh Curse only has 14 more days... hmmm)

Same seller, but this is cheaper, and is only the first volume (the second is available as well). Depends on what you want.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0016JLIGY/ has it as well.

Db may be referring to this, which I don't think has much merrit (taken from a service that treats fractals as copying patterns, name edited out):

My understanding of fractal markets is that technical analysis -- in the forms of MP, Wyckoff, "traditional" price patterns, etc -- are not time dependent. That is, a setup on a daily is valid as is on a 1m. Thus, someone not wanting to fight "the trend" may examine several timeframes to see how price is moving. I've seen people use fractals as repeating / copying patterns (ie, self similar), but I wouldn't agree with that. My hunch is the previous posters' definition if consistent with my own (however misapplied).

Ain't that the truth. Thanks for the clear explanation of how you'd trade using fundamentals. Like Hlm said, it does boil down to style for something like that, as it's oranges to refrigerators type comparisons. I think several people would benefit if one of you prop guys starts a thread on it (and hopefully we can get this one back to chart analysis).

Whoops, just realized the USO supply line I referred to wasn't on the chart. Doh, updated (dark blue).. Db, so you'd say the divergence isn't that noteworthy, since $NADNV was less than on the previous highs anyways, so it's not as though the bears are piling in? Chart:

Okkkay, charts. Indexes broke the mid-late December congestion area on lower volume (which is to be expected around holidays, and a Friday). However, volume is increasing, and the thrust out was much quicker than the slide down. As FW pointed out, it was a 90% uvol day. On the flip side, $NAUD is showing a divergence compared to the last high in this congestion. Our friend, Crude (looking at USO, specifically). We've continued to attract huge volume (on the holidays, no less). The last swing low has been broken, but we're right at a supply line from late Nov. The next potential area of resistance is $40ish. On our hypothetical short, I would scale out on the break of the supply line (if not already done so at break of last swing low).

Re: All you need is a chart Hahaha, you guys are hilariously awesome.

The horse is on its dying breath, so I'll make my last remark, and let it be. I don't think anyone has said that fundamentals are pointless, but rather not necessary -- to which I'd agree, as it seems you would as well (since it's possible to trade purely technically). My previous post wasn't meaning to misrepresent what you're arguing either, as I know you use both. If seeking edge after edge to maximize every situation is one's goal, then he may want to thoroughly investigate fundamentals. However, that's not really my goal. My point about the billionaires had little to do with industry: at the end of the day, what works for you and others, works; likewise, what works for me and others, works. Yes, if, hypothetically, you knew -- secretly -- that the Fed would cut rates 50 basis points below expectations, that would be fundamental knowledge not priced in. However, on a more macro scale (I'd argue anything past an initial shock of a number), I do think trading decisions can be performed better from the charts.

Ah, okay, I'll bite . Saying fundamentals are useless is far different from saying that fundamentals are not necessary. You could disprove the former adequately with consistent returns gained from fundamental analysis. However, you couldn't prove the necessity of fundamentals by using them. Rather, to prove they're necessary, you'd have to fail at every other methodology that doesn't use them. So you see the burden of proof here is far more complex than arguing how well they work, or how complicated the financial system is, or how you can play news events. On the contrary, I'd argue that they aren't necessary, because myself and others (with more weight to "others", as I'm just one person) profit consistently without them. Therefore, we both arrive at the same place: ample profits derived from our methodologies; you from a primarily fundamental approach, me from a technical approach. You don't hear the Oil billionaires arguing the real estate billionaires that their methods for gaining fortune were better. Therefore, if we can get past extremes of "fundamentals don't work" (which of course they can), or "technicals can't work without fundamentals" (likewise), why does it matter? Then quite possibly our definitions of "solid trading" differ... I attempt to maximize profits per time invested.

Not to really jump into the crossfire, but I would dare to say that this forum has a higher concentration of professionals (who daytrade as their primary source of income) than any other I know of. To respond to how we'd know about trades people are making, because it happens so fast: a number of us enjoy hanging out in the TL chat room (link above in the navigation bar). Several people there, myself included, would fall into the "professional" category, and talk about what we're looking at real time. You're more than welcome to join us and chime in your thoughts (it's most active during US hours, primarily in the morning session). I personally use zero fundamentals in my day trading (I trade index futures), but I certainly wouldn't knock anyone who does. And no, I don't scalp for two ticks, spread bet, or anything like that. I don't think I'm boxing myself in by limiting myself to the tools I choose, but I could be mistaken. However, it seems to be working fairly decently (to say the least). Your differing opinions are interesting, though. And I'll let you guys continue... :missy:

In all seriousness, I'm not particularly biased from one or the other (I traded more NQ over the summer). I was making more money on ES, so have focused on that one more. In error? Possibly.

Old ladies... old ladies.

Exactly Head2k. I wouldn't be buying here (I don't try to catch exact tops and bottoms), but considering our hypothetical short, this is an area of note. Yes, sellers are still stronger; however, since it takes buyers (who are trading here) to form a reversal, we'll want to watch carefully.

I disagree, there's actually quite a lot (check the volume at price I threw on). There's also a good deal of selling interest, and the sellers are still stronger (hence the continued downtrend). We'll see how it pans out.