littlefish

Well I did and gradually lost nearly every cent of it over the course of a year or two. You have to understand that most of the advice givers on this board and others are most likely hired by brokers to spread foolish advice that they know doesn't amount to s***. Either that or they are paid to pull the trigger on someone elses money and lose it for a living. Their money is made on commissions. They want you to start big so they have more commissions to make before you blow out (start with a 10/20k account or you'll never make it, etc). My advice is to take every cent you have in a futures account (if you've not gotten pissed one day and blown it all in a few minutes). Put it in a jar somewhere. Take $25 and put it in an oanda account. Toy with something like EURUSD. Spread is nice and low. You'll see the same patterns of randomness to learn from. If you can't turn $25 into $2500 there. You certainly won't turn 25,000 into 2,500,000 in a futures account. Why blow it trying? I've multiplied balances as much as 1000% (some individual trades as much as 40% in one shot using low 50:1 margin) many times over the past years only to blow them out. These are small fx accounts but why would it matter? Just add 0's. I've found perfect setups that work with supernatural accuracy for about a week or two and then become as useless as flipping a coin just long enough to destroy what they produced. Some of which have very sound reasoning behind them too. Anyway, that's my advice and my story. The only reason I'm giving it to you is because you remind me of myself a few years ago.

Yea my point exactly. Thanks for the example.

Have you ever thought to question motive. Since trading is a psychological game. All of the sources that you find while researching. What is their motive for publishing what you read/hear? If a man could sit quietly in his own home, pulling the trigger on a trade, making more than most make in a month/year a day. He'd be a fool to waste his time publishing books, webinars, trading groups, etc, teaching others to do it. Wouldn't he? That's just plain common sense. You're certainly no better off as a result of the influence of those 'educational' sources now are you? I would venture to say that if you are as I am, you'd be far better off at this point if they didn't even exist. Why quit because all the teachers are deluded? Just because they are blind leaders of the blind. That doesn't mean that a man cannot eventually see what they cannot.

Thales, it's your thread. I just didn't want folks to see my previous posting too useless, that's all.

Just took it at 92.30, so it might as well tank now.

Yes any analysis where the pitch man proclaims that an instrument is 'bought up' or 'sold down'. Or somehow manipulated by 'larger players'. How can something be manipulated with buying power when at every single last traded price there was an equal seller selling to them? To pretty much spark thought concerning the sale of scare tactics which can lead many to fear something that doesn't even exist to begin with.

Based on my tape, would it be wrong to say then that there was more weight on the bid than the ask (nobody wanted to do business at 10.25 only at 9.75)? And that's what started the move. Is this possible? The simple question that I am trying to establish an answer for, in apparently a very complex way is. Do large positions after having been established actually have market manipulating power and if so, what is the supporting evidence? Or is the playing field level, no matter the size?

So let me fabricate a market price (tape) based on the picture that is in my head in order to attempt to clarify what I was asking and you explain to me what exactly you mean with your reply in relation to this. Market opens now for first ever time valued at 10. >>> 10.00;1000 One whale feels lucky and buys 1000 and another sells 1000 to him. Both enter a zero sum agreement. One betting the other is wrong at $10.00. Could also be one whale buying from a thousand little fish at 10.00 or a thousand little fish selling to/buying from** one whale too. Since an equal amount is exchanged between the two parties the market is now neutral and somebody has to agree to do something at either 10.25 or 9.75 to make it move, correct or incorrect? Since the gain and loss is exchanged (traded) between the two equal parties, how will it have any affect on 'holding' price anywhere, now that the position is established? Price is established now. How can it affect future price if it's a hedge between the parties who traded at 10.00 and that's it? >>> 9.75;1 two little fish agree to buy and sell 1 at 9.75 putting one whale in the red and the other in the green. >>> 9.50;1 history repeats and the previous little fish who bought from the other gives/loses .25 to the little fish who sold to him at 9.75. >>> 9.25;1 history repeats >>> Now nobody wants to trade above 9.25 for some reason and now the whale who sold to the other whale has scooped three ticks from his account courtesy of the three mini agreements between the little fish below them. Is there anything impossible about this picture I have just painted?

Finally looking half way interesting.

USDCAD has something on it's mind. Doesn't it look like a mirror of the USDJPY?

Looks like USDJPY might be figuring out which way it wants to head.

yea and to think i had a baby short from 4320 and scalped for 10 ticks and a baby short on eurjpy from 33.12 and took it at 32.95. oh well, hind sight paints perty pictures.

Looks like USDJPY is trying to do the same thing as those big charts Thales posted while ago.

Well based on the thimble full that I think I have figured out at this point. I'll take a stab at it. Since it's moving higher, my idea is that it will have to at some point come back to a point here it previously initiated a move higher to decide if it wants to continue or reverse. But what do I know?

That's a very fine example of what I was questioning to begin with. Since it was you and only you who traded the tick above the high, even if you had traded one contract, you and the one who sold to you established the breakout. No matter how big the existing short positions were under you. My argument if any is that it may be (or it is from my line of sight) a serious error to think that just because big volume has hit the market that it somehow 'holds' it up or down. My argument is that if each price change consists of an equal buyer and a seller, no matter the size, it becomes a neutral point creating no bias in either direction. That it is such a level playing field that a small player even at one contract can set into motion a change in the entire market no matter the size of the positions above or below it. :missy:

Or, maybe volume is not a liar but rather cancels itself out. For every buyer there is a seller. If a thousand contracts trade at a given price increment, the market would see that as a hedge. Right? That price increment becomes fair value. Right? At which point the amount traded at that price becomes history and has no influence on the present or much less the future. Right? So then how would price advance higher or lower from that point, putting either one or the other at a profit or loss? History would have to repeat itself again. A transaction (buyer and seller) no matter their size would have to establish a contract agreement at another price level creating fair value yet again. Right? If every price change is fair value, who cares who's activity it is? By what means would 'they' allow or disallow anything in a zero sum level playing field?

Must not be getting any bites. I also question a few more things related to this. If any size trade has the ability to move price up or down one tick, then wouldn't it be true that it would have the potential of triggering any stops that are at that level no matter their size? What about the BIG moves that markets can make overnight on low volume? Is it the volume size that makes the big moves or the individual trades no matter their size at each given price change? Would this not render a lot of 'large' individuals a lot less powerful than they would have you to believe about themselves and actually render the market a level playing field no matter how big you are? If the trades no matter their size establish price, then that would mean if someone thought a market was a good buy at said price and bought 1000 contracts (assuming there was someone to sell to him 1000 at that exact tick), and three more came along selling one contract each. As long as their were ones who agreed to the transactions below the big guy's net long position. He would be in the red two or three ticks. Then if the three little ones forced a domino effect below his entry, he would be forced out of his position. How can it be proven for a fact that a large volume position in the market actually supports it? Is it possible that it does not once it's established and that the only thing that does are orders actively being placed and triggered at levels no matter their size?

If I have an order for one contract one tick above a previous high and another party buys or sells to me filling the order making price trade that one tick higher. Does my one contract purchase/sell agreement between another just like me have the same authority to move the market one tick as an agreement between two for 1000 contracts? If a one contract agreement between two participants (or even outside forces) has the ability to make price trade higher or lower, the same as any other size, would one's focus on volume be beneficial or a distraction from what price itself is doing?

There may be more than one way to define money, rather than the toy tokens with Caesar's head stamped on them. It appears some earn their pay by luring a small or large herd after themselves and then leading them to slaughter. Whether they actually rape them for a monetary profit or not. They delight in their destruction. Judas goats are a good analogy. You can't easily drive/chase sheep into a holding pen or slaughtering chute, such as you can cows. They have to follow something. Historically lead goats have been known to be trained by their owner to lead herds where they are intended to go. Apply that now to the sight of herds of men chasing after teaching idiots who devour their time/lives. Only to keep them mired up in eternal confusion, never seeing the truth.

If the professor day trades to win, why is he selling pdf's to win? :missy:

What difference does it make who trades against you? Somebody has to buy from you or sell to you anyway. Either everybody is temporarily right or somebody is right and somebody is wrong. How many more options are there?

Right click the Description/symbol/etc bar and hit column setup at the bottom of drop down menu. Check the box, "TotalVol".

Ok, today I think I see a very fine example (two actually, mirror images) of what you are talking about in the march NQ one minute. Particularly where I placed the green arrow. It breaks this low in this uptrend to the tick and reverses. I'm certainly no master at this or anything, but if I myself take a long hard look at this. I see no conspiracy at all. Simply price seeking it's level and reversing.

I've gone through a phase of thinking the very same thing too, yet try this for an alternate line of thinking. If the market knows the trend has very recently turned down. The only reason it would break a mini high in a down trend would be because somebody was buying when they shouldn't have been. Breaking that mini high would be like a man who is already exhausted from running up a hill, making the conscious decision to meet a southbound train head on who's name is supply.

Hey, brownsfan. Nice trading. I'm curious though, does your live oec account in which you are placing these trades factor in commissions in your average positions window? For example when Dinero posted awhile back some live trades HERE. His trades reflected more charges due to commissions being deducted from his pl. However when he posts trades in a simulation account the pl reflects no commission.