BlowFish

No ninja comes with zenfire. As you point out it is based on R|thmics technology but it is branded as Zenfire by Ninja, always had been. Ninja was the first platform on Zen (and the only one for a long time). I don't know how the licensing agreement works but Zen is Ninjas product (based on R|thmic technology). I am lead to believe the API is a little different too. Ninja does support R|thmic for options. This is through Vision Financial Markets (an that is the data feed you need to select in NT).

One of the more interesting visulisations that I played with was using a time histogram under a constant volume chart. Similar to trade intensity except sampling the time with respect to a certain volume. I posted a couple of charts showing extremes being picked off in the trade intensity thread. The replenished bid/ask is something that can be tricky to see as turns often tend to be as much to do with buyers retreating as sellers stepping up. I remember Jack Hershey talking about 'walls' on the DOM years ago, and I think Rollo Tape (Whyckoff) might even have talked about it back in the 30's (would need to check). I actually wonder if these things are easier to see by focusing on T&S and a glance at the dom rather than simply staring at the dom? As to the behaviour that UB describes (large limit hitting the best bid/ask) this is precisely the sort of event that can cause the L&R algorithm to mis classify trade direction and is discussed in papers that I talked about elsewhere. There is an argument that that buyer is now passive if he is prepared to sit at best bid rather than chase the ask. It is safe to say that they are now providing liquidity rather than taking it. There is no 'perfect' way of classifying volume.

I'm inclined to agree AK though completely understand where Kiwi is coming from too. I guess no one particularly enjoys being talked down to particularly if they are a peer. You also often see vendors (or someone that even smells like a vendor) driven off. Just because someone is a vendor does not necessarily mean they have nothing worthwhile to say. I guess it's up to each participant to determine an acceptable signal to noise ratio and whether the quality of the signal warrants putting up with noise.

Having said that his book studies in tape reading written under the pen name Rollo Tape was largely concerned with reading the ticker tape as it spewed out of the machine.

Always made me smile how TTM where happy to sell stuff that they had pinched from the public domain. Rather calls into question their integrity I always thought. A live pivot is pretty trivial to be honest, I am sure someone will be able to help. Just about to run out the door or I would write one for you here and now.

There are issues with how IB report volume (even if you process it tick by tick). Usually it's fine but every now and then it's a point or two off over the day. IB's charts are rudimentary at best (many others are less generous) . You can use any charting package that supports IB and has the appropriate indicators written for it. I use Multicharts. Amibroker would do the job though I don't think it reads IB history. I am not sure about Sierra but would guess so. Ninja is a possibility too.

AK, been away for a long weekend so playing catch up. I guess I am sometimes 'harsh' with UB, that is not because of any lack of appreciated for the ideas he has presented. I just feel that sometimes their value is diminished (actually obscured is probably more accurate) due to hubris (which I try not to let bother me) and hyperbole (which I try to point out as this will confuse). Anyway there is useful information as we discussed by PM when it first was presented. I always pay attention. I find your new interest in trade intensity intresting, particularly your comments about programmatically detecting this behaviour. I know you stepped back from 'charting' dom stuff in favour of watching the raw data. This seems like it is one of those 'patterns' that will always be hard to see raw (of course I struggle to see anything much raw as I mentioned elsewhere). Fortunately I have other tools to determine trade location but am still messing with tools to detect shifts in flow. As an aside did you ever look at marketdeltas footprint charts as a way to visualise this sort of stuff?

No harm no foul :D. The important thing is to get people that have had bad experiences with market makers (or bookies if I am being provocative ) to check out real ECN brokers. (Someone kindly posted a list earlier). Of course some people can not afford to trade with such brokers but that is a separate issue. BTW I am not saying that that all MM's are bad news but that is the 'wild west' end of the retail market. Things are certainly improving for retail guys. Not so long ago there where hardly any brokers that offered transparent access (EFX & MBT where the first I am aware of). Until then Also with the plethora of MM type 'brokers' you are bound to get some decent ones though it does seem (only from anecdotal evidence) that they can slide after a while. Mind you FX ECN's didn't exist for retail or commercial guys until about ten years ago, it was all RFQ (Request For Quotation) which meant phoning up the banks desk and asking for a price, impossible for a retail guy. I did have a CMC markets account before then but they actually made the market using CFD's.

Actually I think this is what I have always said, I apologise if I have ever given another impression that has never been my intent. Perhaps you would be good enough to quote what I said and I am sure we can get it cleared up? I have always thought MT4 is perfectly OK charting package but weak for order entry. Once you have used a DOM for order entry it is hard to go back. You said get a broker with fast feeds no latency issues What is wrong with Currenex and Interactive broker on IdealPro ? I wish you would take the trouble to read what I have said rather than just flying off into a rage. Is this not good enough? I also have a 20 meg line and am real close to Telehouse London if that is any help?

hehe nice to see the irony was not wasted!

I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or you did not read my posts properly. You attribute things to me that I have never said. I have tried not to make any judgement calls about anything or anyone. I certainly have not used any words like 'scum'. I will re-state things as plainly as I can. Point 1) 1) There are two broad types of forex 'brokers'. a) Brokers that allow transparent trading on an ECN. b) Bookies (or Market Makers if you prefer) that take the other side of your bet/trade. Point 2) Many people that are critical of spot FX are talking about type b) (though not all there are straight up market makers). Many people that are not critical of spot FX (or are even enthusiastic) are talking about type a) Point 3) Many of the disagreements about experience (which if you look back in this thread and actually read carefully what I said I have not offered my experience) come about because the naysayers are talking about two completely different set ups. The irony is if you looked at what I had actually said rather than what you think I meant you might find that we agree. If you want to discuss what I have said fine, but the ad hominem attacks obscure your argument rather than add gravitas. To make it simple (again) if you are saying that there are staright brokers out there that a retail trader can make money with trading spot FX, I agree. Not only that but depending how you trade you can do absolutely fine with both types. There now you have my opinion as well.

I am not sure I could trade it as it's being traded. It's on a 2.888k draw down right now. On an account that was started with 1k 6 months back. I can't completely work out the figures seems like he is varying the position sizes though hard to tell exactly how. Current figures show an open 30% drawdown on account balance. You can make phenomenal returns if you are prepared to risk it all!

:rofl: I wonder if some of these systems you read about ever worked at all! You and Randy raise an interesting point. Whilst systematic trading can remove emotion from the day to day executing there is still a lot of discretion involved. When do you trade your system, when do you change the parameters, when do you retire it, when do you resurrect it again? I guess some systems are somewhat adaptive and might have subsystems depending on market condition (trending or sideways for example). Still there are decisions that need to be made and a level of knowledge (about the markets and the system) to make them effectively. No ATM's sadly.

That is not what I said at all. MT4 is hugely cumbersome for managing orders with EA helpers it is bearable. The helpers are madatory i.e. the handicap without them is unbearable. Didn't we have this conversation before? The platform is crap for monitoring and managing positions. Scaling in and out on a DOM is so much easier. You need to be able to drag and drop orders,\. You need to be able to split orders. You need to be able to do this with a single click (to place or kill an order) or a click drag and drop to move an order. You can just not do this with MT4 even with EA's. I have an account with Alpari (Currenex or MT4) and with IB (Ideal Pro). You are correct that I seldom trade spot though have on a few occasions pretty much since retail customers could got direct ECN access with MBT.

The answer is post 2 Randy. It is not a question of one size fits all there are actually only two sizes. Most 'brokers' are not, they are in fact bookies. That's why people can not agree they are comparing chalk and cheese.

Ninja usually gets recommended a lot but in its free version (sim only) comes with zenfire dta feed which is futures onl (I think). I guess a lot depends on what you really need from your charts? If it is simply time based bars with maybe a traditional indicator or two then pretty much anything will do (the recommendations you mention above are fine). Like any starting business managing costs is really important. Don't go for expensive software and data feeds unless you absolutely need it.

I am not a big fan of fixed stops/targets, something that takes into account current market conditions makes much better sense to me. I think by 'risk' you mean holding on past your target? Dosen't make sense to me you can only take what the market gives you and your and structure/price action/volatility is a better gauge of that. If you are at your target in no time at all with loads of momentum hold on. The market doesn't care whether your previous trade(s) ended up green. Use account equity to determine position size not targets or stops.

It's a shame that order management systems wont manage using price action/market structure. (swing highs swing lows) I have always thought that superior to 'fixed' N point trailing/targets. Failing that using something that takes into account changing volatility (e.g. based on ATR). The thing with vanilla MT4 the order entry is so poor (imho) that some sort of EA helper is pretty much mandatory.

I'd not have guessed! In that case I presume you are not too bothered having to pay the spread

Indeed but my point is that you are accounting as 1:1 risk reward + "slippage" most (pretty much all) traders would account for as risking 2 to get 1...with 60% winners that won't work. Take another tick without adversely effecting your % too much and you are golden From your first posts it seemed like your execution was slightly off (everyone has been there ), subsequently it would seem that maybe the plan is marginal (need more info tbh). The advice DugDug gives is where I was heading for keep a journal and look at your actual figures. Calculate the R:R on where you actually get in and where you actually get out not on some number where you think you should have been able to get in or out. If you are using sim you might want to use MIT (market if touched) orders rather than limits gives more realistic figures.

Ahh Ok fair enough. I should say that is not really the accepted definition of slippage. Slippage is simply the difference in price between where the order was placed and where it gets filled. Of course you are free to call things what you please but it does not aid communication with other traders In your example (entering and wanting to scratch) most traders would refer to that as paying the spread, yes price has to move a tick in your favour (if the spread is 1 tick) just to get to BE, this is not slippage. Say price is 20 x 21.25 and you buy at market if it fills at 2.25 there is no slippage (even if you just sold short at 20, in fact it is academic where you sold slippage only ever pertains to a single order, not a pair). If however you get filled at 21.50 you have suffered .25 slippage. Whilst you are accounting for everything I think you might be 'cooking the books' a bit. In your 1:1 RR example with a 2 tick stop/target if you are factoring the spread as a separate entity (what you would call slippage) then what you actually have is risk 2 tick to make 1 tick system which is as you say is going to make very little (if anything) with 60% winners.

Imho Forget calculating slippage separately. I am not saying ignore it just factor it into your trade management. There is no real advantage dealing it with separately. (though if you are getting a tick on every trade trade thicker markets). So you risk 8 to make 8, emphasis on make. BTW you do not loose a tick on limit orders. Granted it will need substantial trade at your limit price (or maybe to trade through) but you wont get slippage. You will loose the spread on a stop or market order, that is not slippage. Slippage is where for example you place a buy stop at 53 and it fills at 53 quarter. If this happens a lot maybe you are not submitting the orders correctly, you must make sure that you submit them in such a fashion that they are held natively at the exchange. If they are held on your client or at the brokers you will get far far more slippage. Actually quite experienced traders have been known to get this wrong. If you are a 'break out' style trader (and enter on stop) sure you might loose a tick now and then but you really shouldn't that often on the ES (if you are submitting your orders correctly). If you are more a 'buy support' trader then you can enter on limit and loose nothing. Most BO traders welcome a tick slippage in their direction on entry as it usually means that the break out is real! If by trading 'small areas' you are essentially scalping (risk 2 or 3 ot make 2 or 3). In this case you will need to do more round turns (probably a lot) and most importantly pay a lot less commission. Of course the more round turns allows you to negotiate better commission. Infrastructure also becomes more important too.

Actually there is an argument that loosing sight of that simplicity drains more accounts Sure taking a tick consistently is not a bad place to be, it essentially means that you are a break even trader which is a much better place than a losing trader. Risking 8 ticks to make 8 ticks with 60% winners sounds good to me providing you are well enough capitalised that you can trade with a RoR that you find acceptable. 10 trades per day yields 4 points on average (ES). Commission would wipe out 1 point. 5 trades still works too (1.5 points net). Even risking 2 or 3 ticks to make 2 or 3 ticks can work but obviously getting your costs down becomes pretty important. You would probably need to do more round turns 'scalping' too.

I am not sure what you mean by "I am not that accurate"? (by the context I guess you use larger stops?) Do you have a positive expectancy? If not it dosen''t matter how much capital you have. The figures in your previous example are barely profitable that is why they do not work, not because of under capitalisation. Let me put it another way If you can extract about a point a day from the markets consistently (over the months) you will be able to pay yourself pretty much what you like in about a year. Obviously if your starting account size is not rage enough to trade 1 contract then you can't play. You should probabbly not adjust stops and targets based on account size! Sure account size might determine the size of swings you focus on but you should pick stops and targets that work best for your approach (I favour market structure). Adjust position size to control risk. If you can not afford a 1 lot then you need to raise more or to look at another instrument (maybe spyders or something).

Yes, to use an old cliché you can only take what the market offers you. That needn't be a problem provided you can support yourself while you grow the account. Just out of interest how fast do you want? Compound growth is a fearsome thing and while it might seem slow at the beginning it will quickly hit 'critical mass'.