snackly

I have heard it said (and perhaps someone with experience can verify since I too am looking to decide between FX and FX Futures) that the CME's liquidity can effectively be better than spot FX for the simple reason that there is much less slippage. If slippage is rampant in FX (which depends largely on your broker but it exists even on ECNs from my understanding), then the so called great liquidity is a bit of a misnomer. The liquidity is in terms of total $ traded across all OTC points in FX makes it the most liquid. But that should probably not be confused with the real liquidity at any given moment. I believe that if the size of your orders are < $1M that the liquidity on the CME for FX Futures should be equal or better to spot FX, provided you are trading during RTH. Can someone with more experience confirm? I am at this point repeating what I've been told by half a dozen other folks and I too am looking to find a better understanding of this.

This is interesting because I have just been reading hundreds of threads saying the opposite. What studies have been done that empirically show positive correlation between tic volume and the spot or even the futures market? Thx.

For example when dealing with equities, there are a number of known shares in the market. To an extent the volume traded can be measured with some relative meaning to the outstanding shares. In futures and options there is no maximum supply, or even an effective maximum supply that there would be consensus on. One could buy as many lots of a future as they wish, no? And doesn't Wyckoff's main principal pertain to the exhaustion of supply at a given price point in order to then force the price up so that smart money can proceed to sell into the bullish run? Maybe I am missing something very obvious, I am new to this methodology. Many thanks.

Thanks for the pics. Can I ask about a few of your acronyms on the notes? 1) wrb (does this mean wide range bar or wide range body?) 2) LWL