Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.
Seeker
-
Content Count
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Seeker
-
Aren't there different ways to define a trend? You could pick two points in time and then if one is above the other, the trend over that time was up (time dependent but not timeframe dependent). You could consider the trend on a point and figure chart, so not timeframe dependent. You could consider the trend to be the path of least resistance, which sort of guesses at the future path of least resistance, so not timeframe dependent either.
-
Thanks Niko. I will continue to spend time on it. I don't know whether it is a better method than any others though, as I said, you'd have to judge based on gains and drawdown and accuracy. I have already spent many years looking at price action and have my own ideas, which work to an extent, but not the extent I'd like in my trading. I hope that Wyckoff's ideas can improve things even more for me. I am currently also watching the 1 tick chart and watching price up and down and perhaps I'll have an a-ha moment at some point. Head down, keep working P.S. I get most of the abbraviations, but can someone tell me what the R stands for in TR?
-
I think a key question here is what can be achieved with Wyckoff methods. Obviously people have different level of skills and understanding. But what can be achieved at the highest level? If it can help anyone to be profitable then of course it is already hugely valuable. But trading is then about return and low drawdown, ideally few losses, or losses that are very small in relation to wins. So what can be achieved with this method of trading? Is anyone brave enough to say?
-
Could you clarify this comment?
-
Joined them initially when they offered pay for limits and seemingly tight spreads. It wasn't long before they cut the pay for limits to about 25% of what the initial offer was. There were problems with with depositing and withdrawing money (i.e. they charged for it). There were problems with their pay for limits (i.e. I had to contact them on more than one occasions because the commission calculation was wrong) There were problems with the server (i.e. several times there was no access to any trading platform, for up to an hour, and this occurred during very volatile times U.S. open and the next 90 minutes or so). There were problems contacting customer support. As for the spreads, they were reasonably tight, around 0.9 pips for EURUSD for example. Sometimes lower, but it wasn't 'really' lower. Meaning that there was an order for 3000 for example that tightened the spread and made it look less. But the real tradeable spread was much higher. I almost never got filled on limit orders unless price moved fully through my limit order. So the ECN doesn'#t work well as there simply aren't enough traders. There were many trades I probably should have been filled on, but wasn't because of the lack of otehr participants. On the plus side, I did occasionally receive positive slippage. Lastly, your funds are not guaranteed. Regardless of what they try to tell you, if they go bankrupt, you have no recourse to your funds.
-
It would take longer than 10 days though wouldn't it? There are other people buying, making up that daily volume. As for the main question. Well I don't know. As I understand it there are limits on what % can be traded in a day. Not everyone is trading every day. If price is being marked up, some may want to join in long, others may be quite happy to keep their shares as price is rising, so they wouldn't sell into the martkup. I'm sure you're trying to get me to realise something, but I'm not sure how we can know for sure what % it would take to mark it up. Is 10% enough? Not to prevent large scale selling, no. But it could still be marked up if there wasn't any large scale selling. At least to some extent.
-
I'd expect that to take over a year. I can't give an accurate answer to it, but even with a volume of 50-60m per day, the accumulator isn't going to be that entire volume. Why is holding 80% of the float important?
-
50-60m (I don't know the figures for the times that I focused on, but Barclays was in the UK news a lot during the first time period I mentioned, so perhaps somewhat higher at that time).
-
Do you mean the free float? About 11bn. I am not sure know how much of the float they would need to accumulate for it to move up without too much opposition. Presumably a price range has already been selected that is favourable towards an up move prior to accumulation? (I ask as a question because I'm not sure). But yes, they should need to accumulate a decent amount of stock.
-
I would say that accumulation is supposed to accomplish the purchase of shares over a period of time at a 'good' average price, i.e. without the price rising too quickly before the line has been accumulated, and at a price that it is believed the stock can move up from without too much opposition, with possibly some eventual destination for the price where the line will be sold.
-
Not just one instrument DBPhoenix. Lots, over a large time. I'm very puzzled. For example, consider Barclays bank. From August until October 2011, it seemed to be in a weird sort of range (the prior move down to this area coincided with some news about Bob Diamond, and Libor fines). It then after some time made a decent move up and perhaps mid feb 2012 to April 2012 it seemed again in a sort of range at the top of a swing before heading back down to the first range I mentioned above. Was this accumulation and distribution? If it was, how could one spot this before it has broken? It then made a substantial move up rom August 2012, and looks to me like it has been 'marked up' in Sep 6th-Sep14th, again in January and February 12th 2013 (which now looks like a possible climax).
-
I understand 'typical' price movement. Areas of support and resistance and pricing moving between the two. It's not always easy to trade, but I get it. Sometimes ranging sometimes breaking out and so on, and forming a new range. So I am happy with this, and mostly happy with price movement when it behaves like this. But then every so often a move seems (to me!) to come from nowhere. Price is marked up rapidly and I couldn't see a reason why. I can't understand why the rapid mark up, and I can't spot signs prior to the rapid mark up. I have read Wyckoff but the examples there are not enough for me. Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to derive from those examples a good understanding. I have tried, and still try. Hence my questions. Perhaps I just need to see more examples of this taking place. Although Wyckoff writes quite nicely, there is a lot that seems left out. And the old examples, I can't dissect on my own charts. I can't SEE what he is writing about for myself.
-
Dear DBPhoenix. Yes I have read the course. It takes a lot of work though to understand fully, and I am still so far from understaing it all, so I have lots of questions. Sometimes it helps me if I ask a question as above, and then the answer will help me gain a new understanding of the course. I realise not evey case will be the same, and things can't just be classified as one thing or the other so easily, but it would be nice to have some general idea of what you look for, re the questions I asked.
-
A few questions for the experts. I'm looking to learn. What do you guys generally look for as signs of accumulation prior to a move up? Price having already climaxed to the down side? Price forming a range? In this range do you expect the moves up to take a longer period of time than the moves down or vice versa? Do you expect the moves up or down to be 'messy' in one direction, clean in another? Volume rising on the up move, falling on the down? Highs of the range taken out, but not the lows, or vice versa? If you can give any justification as to why you expect this, that would be great too.
-
Technical Analysis: Is it voodoo? Or does it work?
Seeker replied to Soultrader's topic in Market News & Analysis
I'd take a different approach. Not that Buffett or Winton are wrong exactly, just that they're playing different games to the majority of small time traders. Winton and Buffett are so huge, that they can't enter and exit at precise values. These can move the market temporarily. And if you move the market when trading, then you increase the error associated with your technical analysis.So if I believe it is going to turn up at price X, with target Y, and I can't enter there, without getting an average price of X+error, and out at Y-error, then I've lost 2*error, the larger you get, the larger the error, and the less well this is going to work. Winton and Buffett can't get out of a trade in an instant, we can. Technical analysis can work for us, and not them. It doesn't make it invalid. -
You see this passage says it goes against cutting losses and running winners, but that's not true from my perspective. The first target cuts losses. It's not a winner yet. With a stop of 2 points, target of 2 points, if the trader is good with entry, he will quite often hit his first target, it may then reverse and take out the stop. That then becomes a 2 point loss times 1/3 the position size, or a 2/3 point loss. That is cutting losses. It is about average winner size, average loser size, winner%, loser%, not about where the first target is. Of course if you start taking profits at areas that are all less than the stop, then that would be different. For me, the first target is often hit, and this cuts my losses, and helps keep the confidence to run the remaining parts of the trade as they should be managed. it may not be perfect emotionless trading, but it is realistic trading.
-
Nobody trades forex on interactive brokers then? :helloooo:
-
Could someone tell me how often you are filled on the bid or ask for something like EURUSD. I have previously been trading with MB Trading, but although this is an ECN, I am almost never filled on the bid or ask, i.e. if I am buying, the ask price almost always has to move through my order to get a fill. Is this much better on Interactive Brokers? At a rough guess, how often would you get a fill? It is a more significant trading cost than it at first seems. Many thanks for any replies