TheDude

I was quoted $3.xx a few weeks ago from OEC - that was on the on-line quote generation tool.

Does your Mum get mad with you keeping all those PC's in your bedroom? :haha:

Serious question - Have these intelligent agents ever generated losing trades? I'll fess up and admit I have losing trades sometimes, I'm sure others do as well. But what about the intelligent agents????? It would be interesting to see some expectancy or risk-Reward stats along with win rate. How intelligent are they?

Correct. I did once see some FX traders at Fuji (now Mizuho) using Bollinger Bands, but thats it. (I've never seen a real quant use Tradestation either....)

I'm firmly in the 'don't get it' camp. There is nothing at all in those charts that a simple volume plot wouldn't have shown to some extent or the other. However, from the posts I have read: - The whole thing wreaks of unnecessary complication. All those flashing lights, pie charts etc are for the ego to appear clever. Just my opinion of course If I want to know if price is going up or down, I simply look at the numbers - they do a pretty good job for me. e.g 93 is higher than 89, so the price must have gone up 4. Not hard is it? - There seems to be some claim in the ability to detect who is responsible for this activity. Any such attempt is purely opinion as I have shown in other threads of Uber Blame's - There have been somewhat arrogant posts dismissing VSA, TA, MP and other methods, yet it would seem that there are in fact great parallels in what and how things are being explained. I'd hate to see Uber Blames face if any serious quant saw his work. Oooh how they would scoff! I find the whole scenario to be simply an exercise in inflating ego and attention seeking. Uber Blame - Thanks for the PM offering me a job in your secret hedge fund/prop shop hybrid, but no thanks. You have a tea boy, and an excellent job he does too! I suggest you keep him.

I usually have a level in mind as to where the market should get to. I the market looks weak, I will cut the trade, or bring a stop up just under/above the structure to give it a dogs chance. If the market looks very strong, I will hold and see if we go to the next level beyond that. Looking at ES today for example, it would seem clear the day trend is up. My level (given the gap down) would therefore be yesterdays low. Now, there aint a chance in hell that were going to make that. This is a 2 time frame market and looking at the order flow, there seem to be plenty of sellers - probably longer term traders, while the rally is probably being driven by profit taking from the shorts. Just irrelevant opinion of course. The important thing is that the market is far to back and forth to make a nice move up to yesterdays low. My exit from a long then is going to be based on typical length of recent up swings. That will be the level I will use. As Brownsfan wisely said, it's pointless worrying about too early/late. Just look at the numbers and figure it out. I dont worry about shapes, patterns, fibs, trailing stops etc. Too mechanical. (Im no expert though - I often get it badly wrong!! :haha: )

Interesting. First time I've come across this tape tweet site. It seems familiar to Ensign Windows setting 'Beeb on Each Tick' - which, after comparing the two seems to be faster than the web site - but that could just be the internet I guess?....

I'd go for ES. The changing volatility cycles keep me on my toes. I think being adaptable and flexible are key to being a trader. To be honest, I find trading boring sometimes. I like the thought and idea that gets me out of bed in the morning, but the actual act and the focus required can be like watching paint dry (as Im sure you know). Having to adapt the strategy every now and then keeps me interested - as a challenge. For me, trading a market with the same vol day in day out would probably lead me to the mad house. High vol is nice sometimes IF you get on the right side, but for me, low vol is cool as it offers higher probability as markets tend to stick in value in such conditions. Going in with size in low vol screaming and shouting at the bids to be pulled when youre 1 tick away from a fill! lol! aaah trading..... A close second would be either bonds (30 yr) or GBP/USD. I would have said the EuroFX, but that may not be round much longer - I should buy some Puts as a retirement move! :haha:

Thanks Cunparis. Perhaps it's just a difference of opinion (hey! we have a market!!) 1 - As for LBD, I wouldn't bother with it so much if it is available intraday/15mins. Here's why: Often a commercial will give large orders to brokers to execute, splitting it between brokers. Some they may even execute themselves on a different day or time of. Brokers like Citibank, MFG etc will come under one Cti, where as the commercials will have another Cti code. The broker probably won't allocate until End of Day. So we have one trader executing a position under different Cti codes. Therefore, it's limited in use intraday IMO. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. 2 - No I haven't read the other threads. I've read a handful of other posts and the main core in my opinion is deluded and pied piper. Nothing more. Like you say. A lot of this is based on assumption. We all know the old saying about assumptions! If you see a spurt of prints, it could be an iceberg, it could be similar algo's generating orders, it could be a large bunch of stops being hit. Who knows? Who cares? You know the volume, you know the price. Thats all you need to know. Saying a 2 lot trader never trades a 100 lots is again, a matter of opinion. Irrelevant opinion at that. Maybe my algo is telling me that today, I should build my position in 2 lots. Today, I'm a 2 lot trader. Next week, my algo tells me to put it all on. Hey today I'm a 100 lot trader. If you cant tell whether the 2 lot is retail, or iceberg, whats the point? Whats the fascination with 'professional' anyway? They often get it wrong too! And why is a 100 lot likely to be an arb? Sorry, but this is ignorant. The problem with an iceberg is that it gives a higher degree of execution risk. When you get filled on your first 2 lots, the next 2 lots get sent to where - yep, the back of the queue. In the time it takes to receive a fill and send the next 2 lot in, the price could move and you end up with 98 unfilled. Great! This is rare, but it does happen. My point is, is simply that if 100 lots trades, great. If 2 lots trade, great. Maybe both were part of the same order! Maybe the iceberg executes at random clip sizes. Who cares? Whats more important to me is that so far 102 lots have traded at a price. Who or why they traded isn't the concern. It's over complication. It has no value other than to try and appear that one is more cleverer than everyone else. It pleases the ego, but will not please the account balance. Genius is to simplify the complicated The foolish complicate the simple.

I traded with a wirless mouse once. Big f*****g mistake! I've no need to tell you at exactly what point the batteries decided to die on me, leaving me panicking for what seemed like 15 mins (probably 15 secs) on whether to scramble around in the drawer for new batteries or call the desk to cover. Ouch!

With all due respect, I think you are a little muddled here. With all exchange traded products, be they futures or stocks, one of the selling points the/any exchange will promote is transparency. This means, in it's simplest fashion, that they do not publish who is trading what. The CME/CBOT did produce the liquidity data bank (LDB) which is the closest thing available, but that will just show what category of market participant has traded what and at what price. This as I'm sure you are aware is of limited value to you given the data is and can only be published at the end of the day. So, if we cant see who is trading what by label, we can only guess as you seem to be doing. You seem to be guessing by size of order. Correct me if I am wrong. Anyone who has worked professionally in the industry should be aware of TCA (transaction Cost Analysis). This is essentially methods of breaking institutional (large) orders up so they have less of an impact on the market. (therefore, in your example, the 2 lot trader could actually be the 100 lot trader - sending orders via smart order routing technology to different brokers) If we take crude traded on ICE as an example, the DOM will typically show 2-4 lots bid offered all the way up and down, yet we all know that some of these 2 lots are retail, others are part of an iceberg for say 20 lots or more. You simply do not know. Millions are spent to make sure you do not, and con not detect. To take this to another level and to try to pretend you know if the trade is speculative or arb is for the land of La La. Nobody does. Whats more, nobody really cares.You take your view, you take your trade - based off YOUR objectivity. To try and follow someone elses coat tails is a hiding to nothing. If I buy ES, do I care what BlueCrest are doing? NO. They could be wrong anyway. If you want to know which way the commercials are positioned, look at CoT reports, or easier yet, a daily price chart. Of course, I could be very wrong. Morgan Stanley could indeed be trying to poach your buddy. In my experience though, such people try and keep a low profile. Attention is the last thing they seek. Blabbing over an internet chat room about some supposed holy grail that can detect the undetectable is the last thing they are doing! Good luck, Duderino.

I agree. Given that a good goal/target needs to be both achievable and challenging, I find financial goals lead to pressure to achieve those goals. This can manifest itself in creating pressure that results in taking sloppy trades to achieve those goals. This is idiotic in my opinion as you can not control the market, thus you can not control the frequency or magnitude of (your) opportunity. This can then lead to other problems such as beating ones self up for missing target. A better solution for me is to set a goal that is behaviour orientated. e.g. to be in 75% of my trades. To make sure I cut losses quickly, or not to trade if feeling under the weather etc. What we can do however, is have an understanding of the typical returns the strategy employed will generate over a week/month depending on frequency of opportunity. If those returns arent happening, then either the market cycle has changed (find another edge or adjust the current one), or we are not executing according to the plan (why?).

Ensign Windows (chart app) will have this data in the play back facility - several months worth. I dont know if you can export the data into XL as Ive never looked into it - although EW does have some XL stuff as far as I'm aware. You will have to pay for EW though which is about $40 PCM. I very much doubt you will get it for free. Very little is for free in an industry that is all about making money at every corner. Shucks, I cant even click buy/sell without it costing me a commission! Kind of makes sense if you think about it

I was referring to having their own execution memberships at the exchange. I didn't think Velocity had any memberships. Maybe I'm wrong?

Have you tried walking out the room when you get the entry fill? When you get a fill, put your stop in the market and get out the office. Take a walk for 30mins. Force yourself to take that break. I'm sure if you do this, it may seem odd at first, perhaps a bit unnerving, but remind yourself that you're the one in control, not the market. Just my

May be a slight detour but..... I'd be interested in other peoples thoughts on this idea - which BrownsFan kind of eludes to. Time bars/candles patterns will often use the close as part of that pattern. It is certainly an important element in candle shape. A close on a intraday bar is pretty much random in my opinion. Therefore, patterns relying on a close (like candles) are doomed I tell you. Dooooomed. They may have more meaning on a daily bar because this price represents the price people are happy to hold overnight at, have their positions settled against etc. But in an intraday it isnt significant at all - which is why Browns correctly (IMO) states shape hunting is a fools errand.

No I haven't read it, but it does look good. If I do buy another trading book, then that could well be it, but it WILL be the last trading book I ever buy. I know I said that last time (I say to myself), but....:haha: SIUYA- I understand your point re self-diagnosis. You will for sure come to the wrong conclusions/misdiagnose if you ask the wrong questions. That is after all why people pay psychologists - because they know the questions to ask. The book informs you of the questions you need to ask yourself, so you can understand what causes problems. Such an example - imagine youre in a trade. You ask your self 'how do I feel about the trade?' (this is relevant if your day trading or not). Logging your answers and comparing the result of trades may provide some clues. In my own experience, asking that question before I entered a trade, I realised that I had a feeling of anxiety as I entered losing trades - that my method suggested I take. The anxiety wasnt there on trades that became winners. Now, before I enter a trade, I ask if I am feeling anxious. I know, for me, its a defence mechanism telling me to avoid the trade. For others, that anxiety may only be there on winners. We're all different. But being able to tap into that helps make money. Lets not forget, it's about sorting out trading issues, not deep psychological flaws like your need to post those videos of your ex-girlfriend on youporn.com or something odd :haha:

You be paying around $5 round turn assuming you trade under 1000 lots pcm as a beginner. Using a FCM with their own exchange memberships will probably charge a little more, but you should get that back in service levels. They usually have a higher margin/balance requirement - say $10,000 Trading through an introducing broker will be a bit cheaper (under $5), but service may not be as good - typically because they have to call the FCM who hold the membership with the exchange should something go wrong. In other words, you're dealing with a middle man. You will typically need less to open an account as the middle man/intro broker bundles his business together and takes it to the FCM (wholesaler) to get a better deal. Compare MF Global (FCM) with Velocity Futures (Introducing Broker) Or, RJ OBrian (FCM) and Open E-Cry (Introducing Broker) for example.

lol - Good post! You cant learn to ride a bike by reading books either!!! rule 1. turn pedals. rule 2. turn handle bars in direction of corner rule 3. apply brakes to stop ..... Just doesnt seem right does it?

MadMarket- Yes, I think I agree there. Perhaps it may help to put some context from my own trading? Generally, I have levels that I am looking at. Whether I take a fade or a break out of that level will depend on the context of the market. Volume may play a part in that, so in effect, is that a set up? Not in my book, as I'm looking at the context of the activity v recent activity. You cant predefine that in a list of attributes that create a 'rule'. I'm not being mechanical in that I wait for 3 bars of pull back or less, an indicator to be at a certain level, etc. I've made that error before. For me it's too ambiguous. I started off years back looking at Joe Ross and his TLOC ideas. Great on paper, but for me it just didn't work. How many times did a 1-2-3 turn in to congestion. Same with hooks. You raise a good point about programme trades. Yes, thats another area - and correct me if I'm wrong but it tends to be based around market microstructure and logical relationships. Are those relationships often based around equivalents 'rules', or 'logic'. Now were (well, me anyway :crap: ) playing with semantics...... Cheers.

This is a tricky point (rules). Some rules you must stick to - mostly those are around the running of the business. e.g. risk limit per day, how/when to increase size. Rules regarding entry and exit however aren't worth the cyberspace they're written in. The market is constant flux as we all know. No 2 conditions/opportunities are ever the same. There will be different participants in the market, there will be different influences in the market etc. Trying to apply a rule to such an environment is a fools errand in my view. It's just way to mechanical. Sure, it will be useful to have a set of guidelines, but rigid rules is a big no no in my book. Context is far far more important. Tying to find a 'rule', 'set-up', whatever to give that elusive edge is a hiding to disaster. The market cycle is always changing and to expect a rule to apply all the time and generate serious coin just aint going to happen - in my humble opinion.

I'd urge everyone to read Brett Steenbarger's excellent book Enhancing Trader Performance. He addresses everything from finding the right strategy that fits your personality, training and drills, and most importantly, addressing issues that result in poor performance through cognitive and behavioural methods. Examples are drawn from other high performance activities such as athletics, cycling (Lance Armstrong), baseball and the military. A lot of the proven methods of performing at your peak are of course transferable from these other areas. Perhaps most importantly, it reminds the reader of how many budding actors, singers, sportsmen hit the big time out of all the wannabees? The stats are similar for trading, and it reminds us exactly how much effort is required to achieve this, and describes the effort and sacrifices people at the top of their professions (actors, sportsmen, traders etc) had to put in and pay out to get to where they are - despite the media selling the dream that it's easy. In my opinion, he blows Tharp and all the other pop and armchair psychologists out of the water. On completion of the book, and putting some of the suggestions into practice, we realise we are not competing against the market or other traders, but ourselves. After reading and putting into practise some of the relevant exercises, you should be in a better position to compete against yourself. The cost of this book is probably the best trade you will ever make!

I'm a bit similar to ZDO in what he says. I always put a stop in in case of internet outage, PC failure or other technical issue or general disaster. This is a bitch though because sometimes if I'm in a trade and it's close to the stop in stead of a quick exit at market saving me a few ticks, I think, well, I have a stop in the market so I may as well hold in case it turns.....It's only a couple of ticks..... Of course, had I saved all those couple of ticks..... I also start to think that if I do cover at market before cancelling the stop, it will also then get hit putting me on the wrong side, or if I cancel first, the market will move down that few ticks plus before I can put in that order. I

Rule #1: Don't lose money.

lol. Sounds like the horse race of all horse races! (Which I guess it was)